[PATCH v5 00/12] clk: exynos4: migrate to common clock framework

[Olof Johansson]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 05:37:08PM -0800, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Olof Johansson wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 04:33:29PM -0800, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> > > Changes since v4:
> > > - Rebased to linux-3.8-rc1.
> > >
> > > Changes since v3:
> > > - Includes changes suggested by Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > This patch series migrates the Samsung Exynos4 SoC clock code to adopt
> > the
> > > common clock framework. The use of Samsung specific clock structures has
> > > been removed and all board support code has been updated. imx-style of
> > > clock registration and lookup has been adopted for device tree based
> > > exynos4 platforms.
> > 
> > I'd prefer to see if exynos4 and 5 were kept common here, and both
> > transitioned
> > at the same time. Especially since there are no legacy boards for exynos5,
> it
> > would mean you could have a very clean transition there. What's the plan
> to
> > follow up with 5?
> > 
> Yeah, I'm working on EXYNOS5250 common clk stuff and Thomas is working on
> EXYNOS5440. So I think, we can move on exynos4 and 5 both common clk at the
> same time. Note, EXYNOS5 common clk stuff will be submitted in the beginning
> of Jan.

As per the other reply, that sounds good -- it doesn't make sense to merge one
without the other but it sounds like maybe they can both be ready in time for
3.9.

> > What are the plans to remove legacy board files on exynos4 at this time
> > and switch them to DT-only? You could do it gradually like Stephen Warren
> > did on Tegra, with hooks that call out to some of the legacy code, but
> > configure the board through device tree and do away with the classic
> > machine descriptors, etc.
> > 
> I had a plan to remove non-DT support on EXYNOS4 for v3.10, but if possible,
> I will try to do it for v3.9. If any updates, let you know.

There's no hurry, 3.10 is ok as a target as long as it's taking place. The main
reason for why I was asking was that there was still some legacy board file
updates posted, and that I hadn't seen much patches lately that made it obvious
that there was an effort in that direction. 3.10 sounds like a good target.

> Happy New Year!

Thanks, you too.


-Olof