[GIT PULL] at91: cleanup for 3.16 #1

Olof Johansson olof at lixom.net
Mon May 19 21:32:44 PDT 2014

[Really adding Mark]

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Olof Johansson <olof at 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

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list