Re: [PATCH 00/14] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0, V2

From: Stephen Boyd
Date: Wed Jul 09 2014 - 13:41:43 EST

On 07/07/14 21:50, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 4 July 2014 09:51, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yeah, having something like what you suggested from DT is the perfect
>> solution to get over this. The only reason why I am not touching that here
>> is to not delay other patches just because of that.
>> There are separate threads going on for that and probably somebody
>> else was trying to push for that.
>> That's it, nothing more. I would definitely like to use those bindings instead
>> of the crazy routines we are trying here, once that is finalized :)
> Do we have some kind of agreement for this temporary solution? Anyways
> I will kick the other thread again to resolve the bindings soon.
> @Stephen: Do you still want find_rate_changer() stuff in this series only
> and or this can go into 3.17 without anymore changes and lets finalize
> the bindings Mike suggested and then update this code?

Finding the rate change is not necessary for me. I don't imagine my code
will be getting into 3.17 anyway though so I'm no in a rush to merge
anything immediately.

I still prefer the common clock framework API. If we go ahead with the
find_rate_changer() stuff we've pretty well insulated this driver from
any DTisms, which is nice. The only thing left would be
transition-latency and voltage-tolerance, but those are already optional
so you really don't need to even run on a DT enabled platform to use
this code.

Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at