On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: >> > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface >> > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a >> > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that >> > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. >> > > > >> > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock >> > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree >> > > > description of the mux options. >> > > > >> > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes >> > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly >> > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = >> > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum >> > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on >> > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar >> > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask >> > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that >> > > > are no longer valid. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> >> > > > --- >> > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes >> > > > to clk api usage >> > > > >> > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 >> > > > ++++++++++++--------------------- >> > > > ------- >> > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> >> > >> > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? >> >> As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply >> these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, >> each of which will have patches that depend on it. > > OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from Viresh.
Hi Scott, Did you drop this patch later? I can not find it in 4.5-rc still. Regards, Leo _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
