[GIT PULL] Renesas ARM Based SoC CPG MSTP Clock Domain Updates for v4.3

[Simon Horman]

Hi Olof,

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:42:49PM +0200, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:12:03AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Hi Olof, Hi Kevin, Hi Arnd,
> > 
> > Please consider these Renesas ARM based SoC CPG MSTP clock domain updates
> > for v4.3.
> > 
> > This pull request is based on "Third Round of Renesas ARM Based SoC DT
> > Updates for v4.3", tagged as renesas-dt3-for-v4.3, which I have also sent a
> > pull-request for.
> > 
> > The reason for that base is that the DT changes in this series update nodes
> > added in that tag.
> > 
> > This series begins with driver changes and follows up with DT changes.
> > The latter depend on the former.
> > 
> > 
> > The following changes since commit 94bdc48d55ca10f90b4a625f0e443197e0013557:
> > 
> >   ARM: shmobile: sh73a0 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node (2015-08-05 06:39:28 +0900)
> > 
> > are available in the git repository at:
> > 
> >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git tags/renesas-cpg-mstp-clock-domain-for-v4.3
> > 
> > for you to fetch changes up to 2daa8a5a8c0994893c2ca456303f0bf53e881cb9:
> > 
> >   ARM: shmobile: r8a7794 dtsi: Add CPG/MSTP Clock Domain (2015-08-05 06:42:51 +0900)
> 
> We normally prefer to see drivers separately from DT. If you've looked at how
> we organize arm-soc, you've maybe seen that we have a separate topic for
> next/driver and one for next/dt. In other words, we try to keep them apart
> where it makes sense.
> 
> In this case, that would mean having the clk changes in a drivers branch, and
> include that in this dt4 branch.
> 
> If you want a reminder for when you might have looked at the branch sorting
> wrong: If you're naming the branch after a feature instead of the type of
> patches in it (when you send it to us), then chances are that we would ideally
> like to see the contents sorted differently -- at least in the cases where they
> cross the category boundaries that we organize our tree in.
> 
> So, while it's not a huge deal I think it makes sense to revisit this
> and do that sorting for consistency's sake. Can I please ask that you
> respin this pull request with that in mind? I'd cherry-pick them apart
> but I know you tend to base branches on each other so that might mess
> you up and I don't want to do that.

Thanks for the detailed feedback.

I have split the pull-request and reposted as you suggest above.
And I'll try to keep your 'reminder' in mind in future.