Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] clk: bcm2835: Add PWM clock support to the device tree

[Eric Anholt]

Remi Pommarel <repk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 08:09:47PM -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Stefan Wahren <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi Remi,
>> >
>> > Am 07.12.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Remi Pommarel:
>> >> Hi Stefan,
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 10:16:25PM +0100, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> >>> Hi Remi,
>> >>>
>> >>> please send this patch to devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>
>> >> Ok, just to be sure I understand the process here. I should resend a new
>> >> version of the whole patchset including the devicetree mailing list as
>> >> recipent. Then the first 3 patches will eventually get pushed by a clock
>> >> subsystem maintainer. And finally this last patch will be pushed by a
>> >> devicetree maintainer.
>> >>
>> >> Am I right here ?
>> >
>> > sorry for the confusion. I mean that you send a copy to 
>> > devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx so subscribers have a chance to review.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure but according to your subject you suggest that this dts 
>> > patch should go through clock subsystem which isn't optimal. This should 
>> > be better applied by Stephen or Eric.
>> 
>> It would be applied by me, but that's for me to worry about, not the
>> patch submitter.  The subject prefix would be "ARM: bcm2835: ", but
>> that's trivial for me to fix when applying, not the kind of thing worth
>> asking for a respin for.
>
> Thanks for review.
>
> I'll submit dt patch to devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for review. Is it better
> to submit the whole patchset (patch 1 to 4) to provide some context for the
> device tree patch or just this patch alone ?

I think you're fine sending just patch 4 -- the clk-bcm2835.c bugfixes
are between us and the clk maintainers, as far as I know.  Check
scripts/get_maintainer.pl output to see who all should get the CC on it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature