Message ID | 1386003701-29760-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote: > Arnd, Olof, Kevin, > > This is the big move of AT91 to Common Clock Framework for 3.14. I collected > all the material as a "cleanup" topic so that the CCF can be considered as a > base for all our AT91 patches for 3.14. > I prefer to have the sama5d3 use of AT91 CCF included into this pull-request > so that it can be read as an example and clearly states that it has been tested > in real life. > We agreed with Mike to send this work upstream through arm-soc so that we will > be able to stack other patches for 3.14 on top of that work without having to > deal with conflicts. > > For merging with the "fixes" pull-request that I sent earlier today, I also > uploaded a little branch for reference: > at91-3.14-next_fixes_cleanup_dt-resolution. > In two words, the clock section of the arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c file > has to be deleted. > > Do not hesitate to ask questions about this material. > > Thanks, best regards, > > The following changes since commit 6ce4eac1f600b34f2f7f58f9cd8f0503d79e42ae: > > Linux 3.13-rc1 (2013-11-22 11:30:55 -0800) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup > > for you to fetch changes up to b46e837d8ef1f3c777bbf9513e2cdb5d87d6c374: > > ARM: at91/dt: remove old clk material (2013-12-02 15:31:29 +0100) Thanks, pulled into next/cleanup. use this branch as base for your future at91 branches if you need it to avoid conflicts, please. (I named it at91/sama5-ccf in our tree) Olof
On 04/12/2013 22:54, Olof Johansson : > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote: >> Arnd, Olof, Kevin, >> >> This is the big move of AT91 to Common Clock Framework for 3.14. I collected >> all the material as a "cleanup" topic so that the CCF can be considered as a >> base for all our AT91 patches for 3.14. >> I prefer to have the sama5d3 use of AT91 CCF included into this pull-request >> so that it can be read as an example and clearly states that it has been tested >> in real life. >> We agreed with Mike to send this work upstream through arm-soc so that we will >> be able to stack other patches for 3.14 on top of that work without having to >> deal with conflicts. >> >> For merging with the "fixes" pull-request that I sent earlier today, I also >> uploaded a little branch for reference: >> at91-3.14-next_fixes_cleanup_dt-resolution. >> In two words, the clock section of the arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c file >> has to be deleted. >> >> Do not hesitate to ask questions about this material. >> >> Thanks, best regards, >> >> The following changes since commit 6ce4eac1f600b34f2f7f58f9cd8f0503d79e42ae: >> >> Linux 3.13-rc1 (2013-11-22 11:30:55 -0800) >> >> are available in the git repository at: >> >> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup >> >> for you to fetch changes up to b46e837d8ef1f3c777bbf9513e2cdb5d87d6c374: >> >> ARM: at91/dt: remove old clk material (2013-12-02 15:31:29 +0100) > > Thanks, pulled into next/cleanup. use this branch as base for your > future at91 branches if you need it to avoid conflicts, please. Yes, sure. I still have to synchronize with Uwe as he is building a series for removing timex.h that may conflict with these modifications. > (I named it at91/sama5-ccf in our tree) Well, it seems that the at91/sama5-ccf is not aligned with next/cleanup as of today (94c5216ee93b) Did I miss something? Bye,
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote: > On 04/12/2013 22:54, Olof Johansson : > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Arnd, Olof, Kevin, >>> >>> This is the big move of AT91 to Common Clock Framework for 3.14. I >>> collected >>> all the material as a "cleanup" topic so that the CCF can be considered >>> as a >>> base for all our AT91 patches for 3.14. >>> I prefer to have the sama5d3 use of AT91 CCF included into this >>> pull-request >>> so that it can be read as an example and clearly states that it has been >>> tested >>> in real life. >>> We agreed with Mike to send this work upstream through arm-soc so that we >>> will >>> be able to stack other patches for 3.14 on top of that work without >>> having to >>> deal with conflicts. >>> >>> For merging with the "fixes" pull-request that I sent earlier today, I >>> also >>> uploaded a little branch for reference: >>> at91-3.14-next_fixes_cleanup_dt-resolution. >>> In two words, the clock section of the arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c file >>> has to be deleted. >>> >>> Do not hesitate to ask questions about this material. >>> >>> Thanks, best regards, >>> >>> The following changes since commit >>> 6ce4eac1f600b34f2f7f58f9cd8f0503d79e42ae: >>> >>> Linux 3.13-rc1 (2013-11-22 11:30:55 -0800) >>> >>> are available in the git repository at: >>> >>> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to b46e837d8ef1f3c777bbf9513e2cdb5d87d6c374: >>> >>> ARM: at91/dt: remove old clk material (2013-12-02 15:31:29 +0100) >> >> >> Thanks, pulled into next/cleanup. use this branch as base for your >> future at91 branches if you need it to avoid conflicts, please. > > > Yes, sure. I still have to synchronize with Uwe as he is building a series > for removing timex.h that may conflict with these modifications. > > >> (I named it at91/sama5-ccf in our tree) > > > Well, it seems that the at91/sama5-ccf is not aligned with > next/cleanup as of today (94c5216ee93b) > > Did I miss something? Seems that I pulled it into for-next instead of next/cleanup. Thanks for catching that. -Olof
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote: >> On 04/12/2013 22:54, Olof Johansson : >> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Arnd, Olof, Kevin, >>>> >>>> This is the big move of AT91 to Common Clock Framework for 3.14. I >>>> collected >>>> all the material as a "cleanup" topic so that the CCF can be considered >>>> as a >>>> base for all our AT91 patches for 3.14. >>>> I prefer to have the sama5d3 use of AT91 CCF included into this >>>> pull-request >>>> so that it can be read as an example and clearly states that it has been >>>> tested >>>> in real life. >>>> We agreed with Mike to send this work upstream through arm-soc so that we >>>> will >>>> be able to stack other patches for 3.14 on top of that work without >>>> having to >>>> deal with conflicts. >>>> >>>> For merging with the "fixes" pull-request that I sent earlier today, I >>>> also >>>> uploaded a little branch for reference: >>>> at91-3.14-next_fixes_cleanup_dt-resolution. >>>> In two words, the clock section of the arch/arm/mach-at91/sama5d3.c file >>>> has to be deleted. >>>> >>>> Do not hesitate to ask questions about this material. >>>> >>>> Thanks, best regards, >>>> >>>> The following changes since commit >>>> 6ce4eac1f600b34f2f7f58f9cd8f0503d79e42ae: >>>> >>>> Linux 3.13-rc1 (2013-11-22 11:30:55 -0800) >>>> >>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>> >>>> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup >>>> >>>> for you to fetch changes up to b46e837d8ef1f3c777bbf9513e2cdb5d87d6c374: >>>> >>>> ARM: at91/dt: remove old clk material (2013-12-02 15:31:29 +0100) >>> >>> >>> Thanks, pulled into next/cleanup. use this branch as base for your >>> future at91 branches if you need it to avoid conflicts, please. >> >> >> Yes, sure. I still have to synchronize with Uwe as he is building a series >> for removing timex.h that may conflict with these modifications. >> >> >>> (I named it at91/sama5-ccf in our tree) >> >> >> Well, it seems that the at91/sama5-ccf is not aligned with >> next/cleanup as of today (94c5216ee93b) >> >> Did I miss something? > > Seems that I pulled it into for-next instead of next/cleanup. Thanks > for catching that. Sorry, no, what I did was that I accidentally checked out for-next into at91/sama5-ccf instead of your branch. I did merge the right thing. -Olof