[PATCH 0/5] PM / clock_ops: provide default runtime ops and cleanup users

[Simon Horman]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:51:03PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 02:03:08 PM Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >> Most users of PM clocks do the exact same thing in runtime callbacks.
> >> Provide default callbacks and cleanup the existing users (keystone/davinci
> >> /omap1/sh)
> >>
> >> Rajendra Nayak (5):
> >>   PM / clock_ops: Provide default runtime ops to users
> >>   arm: keystone: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS
> >>   arm: omap1: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS
> >>   arm: davinci: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS
> >>   drivers: sh: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS
> >>
> >>  arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm_domain.c  | 32 +-------------------------
> >>  arch/arm/mach-keystone/pm_domain.c | 33 +-------------------------
> >>  arch/arm/mach-omap1/pm_bus.c       | 37 ++----------------------------
> >>  drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  drivers/sh/pm_runtime.c            | 47 ++------------------------------------
> >>  include/linux/pm_clock.h           | 10 ++++++++
> >>  6 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 143 deletions(-)
> >
> > It is not particularly clear to me who is supposed to apply this series, but
> > I can do that if people don't have problems with that.
> 
> All later patches depend on the first patch.
> 
> For shmobile, Simon has queued up changes for drivers/sh/pm_runtime.c,
> but I think they don't conflict with this series.

Yes, that is the case. I have some patches (from Geert) queued up for v4.1.
I have confirmed that they do not conflict with the shmobile (last) patch
if this series.

<details>
The patches are in the sh-drivers-for-v4.1 branch of my renesas tree; I
rebased them yesterday; they should hit next today if there is a next
today; I plan to send a pull request to Linus in the not to distant future;
and I envisage they should end up in v4.1-rc2 or rc3.  </details>

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:34:33AM -0700, santosh shilimkar wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 7:41 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Thursday, April 23, 2015 02:03:08 PM Rajendra Nayak wrote:

[snip]

> >It is not particularly clear to me who is supposed to apply this series, but
> >I can do that if people don't have problems with that.
> >
> >
> I am fine by that given dependency with first patch.
> Another way is, you pick up the first patch and give us an
> immutable branch.
> 
> Either way is fine by me.

Likewise.

Here is an ack for the shmobile (last) patch if you decide to take it
through your tree.

Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas at verge.net.au>