[alsa-devel] [PATCHv2 4/7] S3C64XX PCM: Added PCLK clock source for the PCM controllers
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar jassi.brar@samsung.com --- arch/arm/plat-s3c64xx/clock.c | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-s3c64xx/clock.c b/arch/arm/plat-s3c64xx/clock.c index 7a36e89..3ab564e 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-s3c64xx/clock.c +++ b/arch/arm/plat-s3c64xx/clock.c @@ -129,6 +129,18 @@ static struct clk init_clocks_disable[] = { .enable = s3c64xx_pclk_ctrl, .ctrlbit = S3C_CLKCON_PCLK_IIS1, }, { + .name = "pcm", + .id = 0, + .parent = &clk_p, + .enable = s3c64xx_pclk_ctrl, + .ctrlbit = S3C_CLKCON_PCLK_PCM0, + }, { + .name = "pcm", + .id = 1, + .parent = &clk_p, + .enable = s3c64xx_pclk_ctrl, + .ctrlbit = S3C_CLKCON_PCLK_PCM1, + }, { .name = "spi", .id = 0, .parent = &clk_p,
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:53:44PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar jassi.brar@samsung.com
As previously mentioned by both myself and Ben this patch should go via Ben's tree since there is no build time dependency. The patch itself is OK but it should not be part of this series.
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:55 PM, Mark Brown broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:53:44PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar jassi.brar@samsung.com
As previously mentioned by both myself and Ben this patch should go via Ben's tree since there is no build time dependency. The patch itself is OK but it should not be part of this series.
I sent this and the other patch in linux-arm-kernel as well(cc to you and Ben) http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2009-November/003726.h... http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2009-November/003727.h...
Since this was a part of PCM support i thought I shud submit everything in the series. Perhaps things don't work that way?
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:33:41PM +0900, jassi brar wrote:
Since this was a part of PCM support i thought I shud submit everything in the series. Perhaps things don't work that way?
If you just send a patch to one tree with no commment about other trees or other reference to the fact that you're not actually submitting the patch people are going to assume that you're trying to submit it.
In general you should only submit the patch via a single path. If you feel you need send a second copy for reference then you need to indicate that this is what you're doing, for example with a comment in the patch after the --- (where the diffstat is) so that people know what your intention is.
participants (3)
-
Jassi Brar -
jassi brar -
Mark Brown