Renesas clock clk-mstp updates for clock-indices

[Simon Horman]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:52:49PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 15/04/14 12:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >Hi Ben,
> >
> >On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks at codethink.co.uk> wrote:
> >>On 15/04/14 10:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks at codethink.co.uk>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike, following the commit to add the clock-indices field, the following
> >>>>pair of commits updates the shmboile clk-mstp driver to uses these over
> >>>>the local variant.
> >>>>
> >>>>Since this is involves two separte trees which are in development, the
> >>>>decision is that we will fixup the renesas trees once they are merged
> >>>>and the development cycle is complete. Once this is done, patch 2/2
> >>>>can be reverted (if people care about three lines of differrence)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>As we now have "renesas,clock-indices" in v3.14, the question about
> >>>backwards
> >>>compatibility became moot.
> >>
> >>Do you mean 'necessary'?
> >
> >Yes, now the backwards compatibility is necessary.
> >
> >>>Can you please combine your two patches
> >>>
> >>>[PATCH 1/2] clk: shmobile: clk-mstp: change to using clock-indices
> >>>[PATCH 2/2] clk: shmobile: clk-mstp: add backwards comapt for indices
> >>>field
> >>>
> >>>into a single patch, and submit to Mike?
> >>>
> >>>Once it's in Mike's clk-next, we can do the following to get everything in
> >>>v3.15:
> >>>    1. Simon cherry-picks Mike's commit into his fixes-for-v3.15 branch,
> >>>    2. we fix arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790.dtsi and .../r8a7791.dtsi there,
> >>>    3. fixes-for-v3.15 gets into mainline through arm-soc.
> >>
> >>Wouldn't it be easier if we just got mike's ack and fixed it in one go?
> >
> >That's another option. But if Mike doesn't apply it to his clk-next, this
> >may cause a merge conflict later.
> 
> Given there's not a lot of work going on with the mstp driver at the
> moment I don't see that there should be much room for conflicts if we
> are getting fixes in for 3.15-rc1.
> 
> Mike, would you prefer an Ack for 1/2, have them both in via yourself
> (and revert 2/2 later) or have them as one patch and sort out fixing
> up later?

FWIW, that approach would be fine by me.