Re: [PATCH 0/9] ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4/ape6evm multiplatform

On 金,  1月 23, 2015 at 02:26:16午後 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

Hi Simon,

On Friday 23 January 2015 13:23:04 Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:39:07PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:59:27AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

Hi Simon, Magnus,

This patch series transitions the r8a73a4/ape6evm platform to support
multiplatform only:
  - Add CCF information to DT,
  - Disable legacy clock if CCF is used,
  - Add Bus State Controller node, and move the Ethernet node to it,
  - Remove ape6evm-reference,
  - Remove ape6evm-legacy and legacy support code.

This series is based on renesas-drivers-2015-01-19-v3.19-rc5.
It depends on renesas-devel-20150119-v3.19-rc5 (code-wise) and
clk-shmobile-for-3.20 (functionality-wise), for which I've sent a pull
request to Mike Turquette yesterday.

All of this was untested by me due to lack of hardware.
As Mike had previously acked the r8a73a4 CCF implementation, it's safe
to apply after testing.

Hi Geert, Hi Ulrich,

thanks for all your good work in getting this together.
I have tested this and queued it up for v3.21.

I plan to push it to my devel branch later today.
I plan to push it to my next branch and thus linux-next once
clk-shmobile-for-3.20 appears in a v3.20-rc.

For the record: Olof has asked for review comments for the BSC driver and
binding patches. Accordingly I have dropped them, and these patches which
depend on them, from next.

I have now had a chance to re-examine these patches and it seems to me that
the first four patches of the series not depend on the BSC driver (or
anything else).  With that in mind I have queued them up in a new
r8a73a4-ccf-for-v3.21 branch which is present in
renesas-devel-20150123-v3.19-rc5.

Please take a moment to see if what I have done makes sense to you.  In
particular it would be nicer if these patches could go into 'regular'
branches such as dt-for-v3.21 and soc-for-v3.21. However it seems to me
that the SoC patch "ARM: shmobile: ape6evm: Disable legacy clock
initialization" depends on the following two DT patche " "ARM: shmobile:
r8a73a4: Common clock framework DT description".

I've noticed you have dropped the following patches from your devel branch:

clk: shmobile: div6: Avoid changing divisor in .disable()
clk: shmobile: Add r8a7793 support
clk: shmobile: r8a7793: document CPG clock support
clk: shmobile: r8a73a4 common clock framework implementation
clk: shmobile: Add r8a73a4 SoC to MSTP bindings
clk: shmobile: Add R-Car Gen2 RCAN clock support
clk: shmobile: Add R-Car Gen2 ADSP clock support

I don't see those patches queued in Mike Turquette's CCF tree.

How should they be handled, and do they need to be delayed to v3.21 ?

My understanding is that that Geert has sent a pull request to Mike for
those. And that they are targeted at v3.21 via Mike's tree.

I was (perhaps) confusingly carrying that  branch that Geert sent a pull
request for in order to allow me to queue up all of the shmobile side of
r8a73a4 multiplatform. My expectation was that the clk: shmobile changes
would be in Linus's tree before I sent a pull request for the shmobile side
of r8a73a4 multiplatform.

Using the same logic I should probably re-queue up the "clk: shmobile"
changes in my devel branch. But perhaps its best to leave them out to avoid
further confusion.