[PATCH v6 00/16] clk: exynos4/5: migrate to common clock framework

[Kukjin Kim]

Mike Turquette wrote:
> 
> Quoting Kukjin Kim (2013-03-19 17:00:09)
> > Mike Turquette wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > Thomas,
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you planning a V7 series which includes the clock alias bits from
> > > > > patch #1?
> > > >
> > > > Kukjin has already applied this series into the linux-samsung tree [0].
> > > >
> > Thanks, Heiko.
> >
> > Mike, yes I did, as we discussed before. Since I missed in last window for
> v3.9, so I merged every common clock stuff for exynos into samsung tree in the
> early 3.9-rc time for v3.10.
> > >
> > > That really is too much code to go into drivers/clk without my ACK.  I
> > > have not made much noise about this in the past but there has been more
> > > and more "bonus" code slipping into drivers/clk each merge window.
> > > Let's not do that any more.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, I remember you already agreed on previous version, and I thought if any
> further codes are required, we could do it on top of that.
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-
> January/143429.html
> >
> 
> In the email you linked to my use of the word "merged" did not imply an
> ACK.  I was asking about merging the two separate exynos4 and exynos5
> ccf development efforts together.
> 
OK, I see.

> Furthermore if I *had* agreed on the previous version it would still
> have been appropriate to put my Acked-by on those patches, which is
> clearly missing today.
> 
BTW, how about following?

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg210266.html

In my understanding, it should be your agreement, it cannot be 'ack' though.

> > However, if you don't want current codes to be sent to upstream, let me know,
> but I don't think it would be better to us though.
> 
> No, I am not asking you to revert/drop the patches, but I am using this
> as a public example.
> 
What's the 'public example'?

As I linked, you already said 'sounds good to me' on my asking.

- Kukjin