Hi, On 12/14/2012 07:44 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, 14 Dec 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> Paul, what about this patch? Looks like you've acked the other clock >> patches in this series but not this one? > > I commented on it briefly here: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1838111/ > > Maybe Benoît could comment here, but it looks to me (based on a > superficial look at the hardware clock tree data) that these clock nodes > should exist. In an ideal world, we'd be able to get back to the > autogeneration of this clock data.
I'm not sure to understand either the rational for that patch. What the point of merging the two nodes? I mean, we can do it, but AFAIR, we have always decided to use atomic node instead of big nodes that handle everything. Regards, Benoit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
