Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
[Really adding Mark]
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> [adding Mark]
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:22:16AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
>> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> > > There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
>> > > arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
>> > >
>> > > https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
>> >
>> > That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of
>> > them
>> > are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
>> >
>> > I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
>>
>> I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
>> ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
>
> I'm looking more for consistency than anything else. Having a few in the
> root and the few in a subnode certainly indicates that something's wrong.
>
> It's a good thing that we have several DT maintainers to spread the load,
> but it's also harder to learn the preferences of the maintainer(s) since
> there seems to be variety (some care more about some things than others).
>
> I'm not saying that Mark is wrong, but it's quite possible that someone
> else would disagree or not care enough to point it out. The current
> practice of having clocks under a subnode is prevalent almost everywhere
> in the tree, and this is a mostly new direction set by Mark. It makes
> it very hard to figure out what's the best way to do things when there's
> less consistency.
>
> Clearly, having clocks grouped in a subnode is common practice already, and
> makes some sense from a readability point of view.
>
> Anyway, I'll leave the rest for some DT maintainer to sort out. Please
> follow up with patches to switch over to one or the other model no matter
> what, please.
>
>
> -Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:10:32PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 17/05/2014 01:31, Olof Johansson :
> > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:26:35PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> >>> On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
> Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
>
> This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big
> because it
> integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
> integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core
> at91
> code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned
> maintainers
> added their tags.
>
> The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
> include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
>
> Thanks, best regards,
>
> The following changes since commit
> 89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
>
> Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
>
> are available in the git repository at:
>
> git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
> >>>
> >>> There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
> >>> arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
> >>
> >> That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of
> >> them
> >> are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
> >>
> >> I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
>
> With information from Alexandre, I have the feeling that we should
> remove the "clocks" container altogether. I propose to clean completely
> this part in 3.17 as it will not change the system but only its
> representation in DT...
> Still, we will fix the ugliest parts like this one:
> http://code.bulix.org/by22lb-86239
Right, that should be changed in one direction or another -- as mentioned in
my other reply just now I care more about consistency than the option you end
up choosing even though it does make some sense to me to group the clocks.
Either way, please follow up with patches instead of a pull request,
please, since there's no good way for you to base a pull request on top
of the merge-conflict-resolved resulting branch in our tree.
> > Oh, and also: The branch was named cleanup, but it really contains mostly
> > new
> > driver and new contents, so I merged it under next/soc instead. In the
> > future,
> > for releases when you have more contents, please split it up a bit more (dt
> > updates separately, driver updates separately) if it can be done without too
> > much hassle. For now it's not a huge deal to do it this way though.
>
> Yes. The issue with these series that switch from one description to
> another is that if we split the driver and dt parts it would add extra
> steps which are not very easy to keep in sync, implement and are kind of
> useless.
>
> I have more series to come for 3.16 that I named "cleanup" as well. I
> will double check to see if I can split them up more...
Ok. :) No worries. Getting used to splitting up takes a little while and it's
usually not a big deal -- you can still base the branches on top of each other
just cut them into separate pull requests. I can elaborate if you want.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
[adding Mark]
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:22:16AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > > There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
> > > arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
> >
> > That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
> > are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
> >
> > I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
> >
>
> Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
>
> I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
> ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
I'm looking more for consistency than anything else. Having a few in the
root and the few in a subnode certainly indicates that something's wrong.
It's a good thing that we have several DT maintainers to spread the load,
but it's also harder to learn the preferences of the maintainer(s) since
there seems to be variety (some care more about some things than others).
I'm not saying that Mark is wrong, but it's quite possible that someone
else would disagree or not care enough to point it out. The current
practice of having clocks under a subnode is prevalent almost everywhere
in the tree, and this is a mostly new direction set by Mark. It makes
it very hard to figure out what's the best way to do things when there's
less consistency.
Clearly, having clocks grouped in a subnode is common practice already, and
makes some sense from a readability point of view.
Anyway, I'll leave the rest for some DT maintainer to sort out. Please
follow up with patches to switch over to one or the other model no matter
what, please.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On 17/05/2014 01:31, Olof Johansson :
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:26:35PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because
it
integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core at91
code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers
added their tags.
The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
Thanks, best regards,
The following changes since commit
89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
>>>
>>> There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
>>> arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
>>
>> That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
>> are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
>>
>> I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
With information from Alexandre, I have the feeling that we should
remove the "clocks" container altogether. I propose to clean completely
this part in 3.17 as it will not change the system but only its
representation in DT...
Still, we will fix the ugliest parts like this one:
http://code.bulix.org/by22lb-86239
> Oh, and also: The branch was named cleanup, but it really contains mostly new
> driver and new contents, so I merged it under next/soc instead. In the future,
> for releases when you have more contents, please split it up a bit more (dt
> updates separately, driver updates separately) if it can be done without too
> much hassle. For now it's not a huge deal to do it this way though.
Yes. The issue with these series that switch from one description to
another is that if we split the driver and dt parts it would add extra
steps which are not very easy to keep in sync, implement and are kind of
useless.
I have more series to come for 3.16 that I named "cleanup" as well. I
will double check to see if I can split them up more...
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
[adding Mark]
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:22:16AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
I'm looking more for consistency than anything else. Having a few in the
root and the few in a subnode certainly indicates that something's wrong.
It's a good thing that we have several DT maintainers to spread the load,
but it's also harder to learn the preferences of the maintainer(s) since
there seems to be variety (some care more about some things than others).
I'm not saying that Mark is wrong, but it's quite possible that someone
else would disagree or not care enough to point it out. The current
practice of having clocks under a subnode is prevalent almost everywhere
in the tree, and this is a mostly new direction set by Mark. It makes
it very hard to figure out what's the best way to do things when there's
less consistency.
Clearly, having clocks grouped in a subnode is common practice already, and
makes some sense from a readability point of view.
Anyway, I'll leave the rest for some DT maintainer to sort out. Please
follow up with patches to switch over to one or the other model no matter
what, please.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 05:10:32PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 17/05/2014 01:31, Olof Johansson :
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:26:35PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big
because it
integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core
at91
code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned
maintainers
added their tags.
The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
Thanks, best regards,
The following changes since commit
89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of
them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
With information from Alexandre, I have the feeling that we should
remove the clocks container altogether. I propose to clean completely
this part in 3.17 as it will not change the system but only its
representation in DT...
Still, we will fix the ugliest parts like this one:
http://code.bulix.org/by22lb-86239
Right, that should be changed in one direction or another -- as mentioned in
my other reply just now I care more about consistency than the option you end
up choosing even though it does make some sense to me to group the clocks.
Either way, please follow up with patches instead of a pull request,
please, since there's no good way for you to base a pull request on top
of the merge-conflict-resolved resulting branch in our tree.
Oh, and also: The branch was named cleanup, but it really contains mostly
new
driver and new contents, so I merged it under next/soc instead. In the
future,
for releases when you have more contents, please split it up a bit more (dt
updates separately, driver updates separately) if it can be done without too
much hassle. For now it's not a huge deal to do it this way though.
Yes. The issue with these series that switch from one description to
another is that if we split the driver and dt parts it would add extra
steps which are not very easy to keep in sync, implement and are kind of
useless.
I have more series to come for 3.16 that I named cleanup as well. I
will double check to see if I can split them up more...
Ok. :) No worries. Getting used to splitting up takes a little while and it's
usually not a big deal -- you can still base the branches on top of each other
just cut them into separate pull requests. I can elaborate if you want.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
[Really adding Mark]
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Olof Johansson o...@lixom.net wrote:
[adding Mark]
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 06:22:16AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of
them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
I'm looking more for consistency than anything else. Having a few in the
root and the few in a subnode certainly indicates that something's wrong.
It's a good thing that we have several DT maintainers to spread the load,
but it's also harder to learn the preferences of the maintainer(s) since
there seems to be variety (some care more about some things than others).
I'm not saying that Mark is wrong, but it's quite possible that someone
else would disagree or not care enough to point it out. The current
practice of having clocks under a subnode is prevalent almost everywhere
in the tree, and this is a mostly new direction set by Mark. It makes
it very hard to figure out what's the best way to do things when there's
less consistency.
Clearly, having clocks grouped in a subnode is common practice already, and
makes some sense from a readability point of view.
Anyway, I'll leave the rest for some DT maintainer to sort out. Please
follow up with patches to switch over to one or the other model no matter
what, please.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On 17/05/2014 01:31, Olof Johansson :
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:26:35PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because
it
integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core at91
code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers
added their tags.
The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
Thanks, best regards,
The following changes since commit
89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
With information from Alexandre, I have the feeling that we should
remove the clocks container altogether. I propose to clean completely
this part in 3.17 as it will not change the system but only its
representation in DT...
Still, we will fix the ugliest parts like this one:
http://code.bulix.org/by22lb-86239
Oh, and also: The branch was named cleanup, but it really contains mostly new
driver and new contents, so I merged it under next/soc instead. In the future,
for releases when you have more contents, please split it up a bit more (dt
updates separately, driver updates separately) if it can be done without too
much hassle. For now it's not a huge deal to do it this way though.
Yes. The issue with these series that switch from one description to
another is that if we split the driver and dt parts it would add extra
steps which are not very easy to keep in sync, implement and are kind of
useless.
I have more series to come for 3.16 that I named cleanup as well. I
will double check to see if I can split them up more...
Thanks, bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
> > arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
> >
> > https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
>
> That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
> are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
>
> I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
>
Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:26:35PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> > On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
> > > Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
> > >
> > > This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because
> > > it
> > > integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
> > > integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core
> > > at91
> > > code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers
> > > added their tags.
> > >
> > > The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
> > > include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
> > >
> > > Thanks, best regards,
> > >
> > > The following changes since commit
> > > 89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
> > >
> > > Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
> > >
> > > are available in the git repository at:
> > >
> > > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
> >
> > There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
> > arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
> >
> > https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
>
> That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
> are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
>
> I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
Oh, and also: The branch was named cleanup, but it really contains mostly new
driver and new contents, so I merged it under next/soc instead. In the future,
for releases when you have more contents, please split it up a bit more (dt
updates separately, driver updates separately) if it can be done without too
much hassle. For now it's not a huge deal to do it this way though.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
> > Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
> >
> > This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because it
> > integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
> > integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core at91
> > code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers
> > added their tags.
> >
> > The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
> > include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
> >
> > Thanks, best regards,
> >
> > The following changes since commit 89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
> >
> > Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
> >
> > are available in the git repository at:
> >
> > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
>
> There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
> arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
>
> https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because it
integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core at91
code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers
added their tags.
The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
Thanks, best regards,
The following changes since commit 89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 04:26:35PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre :
Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because
it
integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I
integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core
at91
code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers
added their tags.
The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the
include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage.
Thanks, best regards,
The following changes since commit
89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd:
Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700)
are available in the git repository at:
git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
Oh, and also: The branch was named cleanup, but it really contains mostly new
driver and new contents, so I merged it under next/soc instead. In the future,
for releases when you have more contents, please split it up a bit more (dt
updates separately, driver updates separately) if it can be done without too
much hassle. For now it's not a huge deal to do it this way though.
-Olof
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On 16/05/2014 at 16:26:35 -0700, Olof Johansson wrote :
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:39:35PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in
arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it:
https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved
That resolution looks odd. Why is one clock under clocks { } and two of them
are at the top level? Shouldn't they all be under the clocks subnode?
I've merged in now with your resolution, but I think this needs revisiting.
Actually, all the clocks should end up at the root, please refer to:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/240219.html
I feel that was one of the topics we should have discussed at ELC but we
ended up talking about DT ABI stability instead...
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre : > Arnd, Olof, Kevin, > > This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because it > integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I > integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core at91 > code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers > added their tags. > > The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the > include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage. > > Thanks, best regards, > > The following changes since commit 89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd: > > Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it: https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved Best regards, > for you to fetch changes up to 138e8f1c4e99cd349e50fd8b18aebbd2716ceb87: > > ARM: at91/dt: at91-cosino_mega2560 remove useless tsadcc node (2014-05-07 > 18:28:41 +0200) > > > First cleanup series for 3.15 > - localize GPIO header in mach-at91 directory > - big update on the CCF front with main and slow clocks > - a cleanup of ADC and touchscreen driver with unification on IIO and > removal of old driver > > > Alexandre Belloni (15): > ARM: at91: sam9g45: remove unused platform_data > ARM: at91: sam9260: remove unused platform_data > iio: adc: at91: cleanup platform_data > iio: adc: at91_adc: Add support for touchscreens without TSMR > ARM: at91: sam9m10g45ek: Add touchscreen support through at91_adc > iio: adc: at91: remove unused include from include/mach > iio: adc: at91: add sam9rl support > ARM: at91: sam9rl: add at91_adc to support adc and touchscreen > ARM: at91: sam9rlek add touchscreen support through at91_adc > ARM: at91: sam9g45: switch from atmel_tsadcc to at91_adc > ARM: at91: sam9rl: switch from atmel_tsadcc to at91_adc > ARM: at91: remove atmel_tsadcc from sama5_defconfig > Input: atmel_tsadcc: remove driver > ARM: at91: remove atmel_tsadcc platform_data > ARM: at91/dt: at91-cosino_mega2560 remove useless tsadcc node > > Boris BREZILLON (11): > clk: at91: rework main clk implementation > clk: at91: update main clk documentation > clk: at91: add slow clks driver > clk: at91: add slow clk documentation > ARM: at91/dt: move sama5d3 SoC to the new main/slow clk model > ARM: at91/dt: add xtal frequencies to sama5d3xcm boards > ARM: at91/dt: add xtal frequencies to sama5d3 xplained board > ARM: at91/dt: move at91sam9261 SoC to the new main clock model > ARM: at91/dt: define main xtal frequency of the at91sam9261ek board > ARM: at91/dt: move at91sam9rl SoC to the new slow/main clock models > ARM: at91/dt: define sam9rlek crystal frequencies > > Linus Walleij (1): > ARM: at91: localize GPIO header > > Nicolas Ferre (1): > ASoC: sam9g20_wm8731: remove useless mach/gpio.h > > .../devicetree/bindings/clock/at91-clock.txt | 128 - > MAINTAINERS| 6 - > arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 - > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-cosino_mega2560.dts | 5 - > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d3_xplained.dts| 8 + > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261.dtsi | 23 +- > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts| 4 + > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rl.dtsi | 46 +- > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rlek.dts | 9 + > arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi | 61 ++- > arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3xcm.dtsi | 8 + > arch/arm/configs/at91sam9g45_defconfig | 3 +- > arch/arm/configs/at91sam9rl_defconfig | 3 +- > arch/arm/configs/sama5_defconfig | 1 - > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200_devices.c| 1 + > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c | 12 +- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261_devices.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45_devices.c | 64 +-- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c| 7 + > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl_devices.c| 84 ++- > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-1arm.c| 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-afeb-9260v1.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-cam60.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-carmeva.c | 1 + >
Re: [GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1
On 07/05/2014 19:34, Nicolas Ferre : Arnd, Olof, Kevin, This is the first cleanup pull-request for 3.16. It is pretty big because it integrates the work from Boris about CCF and Alexandre about IIO/ADC. I integrated them in this cleanup topic because they both touch the core at91 code, the clk and IIO drivers as well as the DT. The concerned maintainers added their tags. The patch by Linus is a move of at91 specific GPIO definitions out of the include/mach directory which is an step towards single zImage. Thanks, best regards, The following changes since commit 89ca3b881987f5a4be4c5dbaa7f0df12bbdde2fd: Linux 3.15-rc4 (2014-05-04 18:14:42 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91.git tags/at91-cleanup There is a little conflict with at91-3.16-dt that you already pulled in arm-soc: here is the branch that resolves it: https://github.com/at91linux/linux-at91/commits/at91-3.16-resolved Best regards, for you to fetch changes up to 138e8f1c4e99cd349e50fd8b18aebbd2716ceb87: ARM: at91/dt: at91-cosino_mega2560 remove useless tsadcc node (2014-05-07 18:28:41 +0200) First cleanup series for 3.15 - localize GPIO header in mach-at91 directory - big update on the CCF front with main and slow clocks - a cleanup of ADC and touchscreen driver with unification on IIO and removal of old driver Alexandre Belloni (15): ARM: at91: sam9g45: remove unused platform_data ARM: at91: sam9260: remove unused platform_data iio: adc: at91: cleanup platform_data iio: adc: at91_adc: Add support for touchscreens without TSMR ARM: at91: sam9m10g45ek: Add touchscreen support through at91_adc iio: adc: at91: remove unused include from include/mach iio: adc: at91: add sam9rl support ARM: at91: sam9rl: add at91_adc to support adc and touchscreen ARM: at91: sam9rlek add touchscreen support through at91_adc ARM: at91: sam9g45: switch from atmel_tsadcc to at91_adc ARM: at91: sam9rl: switch from atmel_tsadcc to at91_adc ARM: at91: remove atmel_tsadcc from sama5_defconfig Input: atmel_tsadcc: remove driver ARM: at91: remove atmel_tsadcc platform_data ARM: at91/dt: at91-cosino_mega2560 remove useless tsadcc node Boris BREZILLON (11): clk: at91: rework main clk implementation clk: at91: update main clk documentation clk: at91: add slow clks driver clk: at91: add slow clk documentation ARM: at91/dt: move sama5d3 SoC to the new main/slow clk model ARM: at91/dt: add xtal frequencies to sama5d3xcm boards ARM: at91/dt: add xtal frequencies to sama5d3 xplained board ARM: at91/dt: move at91sam9261 SoC to the new main clock model ARM: at91/dt: define main xtal frequency of the at91sam9261ek board ARM: at91/dt: move at91sam9rl SoC to the new slow/main clock models ARM: at91/dt: define sam9rlek crystal frequencies Linus Walleij (1): ARM: at91: localize GPIO header Nicolas Ferre (1): ASoC: sam9g20_wm8731: remove useless mach/gpio.h .../devicetree/bindings/clock/at91-clock.txt | 128 - MAINTAINERS| 6 - arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 - arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-cosino_mega2560.dts | 5 - arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d3_xplained.dts| 8 + arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261.dtsi | 23 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9261ek.dts| 4 + arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rl.dtsi | 46 +- arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9rlek.dts | 9 + arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3.dtsi | 61 ++- arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d3xcm.dtsi | 8 + arch/arm/configs/at91sam9g45_defconfig | 3 +- arch/arm/configs/at91sam9rl_defconfig | 3 +- arch/arm/configs/sama5_defconfig | 1 - arch/arm/mach-at91/at91rm9200_devices.c| 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9260_devices.c | 12 +- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261_devices.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9263_devices.c | 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45_devices.c | 64 +-- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl.c| 7 + arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9rl_devices.c| 84 ++- arch/arm/mach-at91/board-1arm.c| 2 +- arch/arm/mach-at91/board-afeb-9260v1.c | 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/board-cam60.c | 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/board-carmeva.c | 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/board-cpu9krea.c| 1 + arch/arm/mach-at91/board-cpuat91.c | 2 +
