On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 15:01 -0600, Li Yang wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood <o...@buserror.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 12:14 -0600, Li Yang wrote: > > > 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 are no longer valid.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. > > > > I was asked to get an ack from Russell King patch 4/5, which this patch > > requires. Despite repeated pings, I could not get a reply from Russell > > King. > > This patch? I think you should try to get ACK from clock maintainers > instead of Russell.
A clock maintainer was who asked me to get an ACK from Russell. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
