Quoting Weiyi Lu (2019-02-25 20:00:50)
On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24)
On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote:
What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this upcoming merge window.
As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape.
Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it.
Hi Stephen,
Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into clk-next. If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll fix them and send v5 only for clock.
It looks like Matthias has some comments on the first patch that need to be addressed. I looked over the rest of the clk patches and they look ok at a quick glance. If you resend just the clk patches without the rest then I can probably apply them for the upcoming merge window.