On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:55 PM, John Stultz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Olof Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:48:43PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >>> This patchset enables the pl031 RTC on the Hi6220 SoC. >>> >>> I'd like to submit it to be merged. >>> >>> Wei has acked the second patch (modulo a whitespace fix which >>> I've included in this v3), so it seems like both could go >>> through the clk tree. >>> >>> But Wei also seemed open to pulling in a clk tree branch >>> as it goes through arm-soc. >>> >>> Michael/Stephen: If there's no other objections, could you >>> queue the first patch and make it avilable via the branch for >>> Wei, or just take both patches? >> >> I happen to dread these kind of patchsets these days. There's added >> dependencies across trees just because a defined name for the clock >> number is added to a header file. >> >> I much prefer to use numerical clocks for one release, and then once >> everything is in, switch over to the defines in the DTS. >> >> That way there are no dependencies, no need to setup a shared branch >> for a simple 3-line patch, etc. >> >> So, mind respinning the DTS piece? > > Huh..
Sorry if it appeared random, I've complained about it for a while to submaintainers. :) > But trying to boot w/ the numerical clock in the DTS, without the clk > change results in lots of noise: > [ 116.491458] of_clk_src_onecell_get: invalid clock index 37 > [ 116.511627] of_clk_src_onecell_get: invalid clock index 38 > > Is that acceptable? Grmbl. Is it a lot of those? That's definitely not ideal either. If it's one or two during probe (since clk_gets should ideally fail at probe time) then I'd be less worried. -Olof
