RE: [PATCH v5 0/7] cpufreq: use cpufreq-cpu0 driver for exynos based platforms
Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.cpufreq,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-samsung-soc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Kukjin, > Hi, > On 26.05.2014 00:50, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > On 05/23/14 23:27, Thomas Abraham wrote: > >> Changes since v4: > >> - Various changes in clock code suggested by Tomasz > >> Figa<[email protected]> > >> - This series depends on mutiple other patches > >> [a] patch that introduces read-only attribute for clock dividers. > >> - > >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014- > May/259264.html > >> > >> [b] the series "PM / OPP: move cpufreq specific helpers out of OPP > >> layer" > >> - > >> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg104610.html > >> [c] the series "cpufreq: opp: Add device tree based lookup of boost > >> mode frequency" > >> - http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg334336.html > >> > > This series looks good to me after quick loking at but as I replied on > > other thread, I'm not sure above changes are ready for 3.16 or not... > > > > Maybe we can revisit this series for 3.17?...hmm... > > Also two more issues: > > 1) DT bindings are not acked by DT maintainers, > 2) there are my comments to DT bindings from v4 not addressed. > > There are also several comments about the code of v4 not addressed, but > this is not that important, as opposed to DT bindings which are supposed > to be stable ABI. > > Still, I don't think this is a big deal anymore, as we can have cpufreq > working with multiplatform with my hack patch and polish the > implementation of this series without any hurry. > Yeah, I'm waiting for Viresh's ack on your v2 exynos-cpufreq changes for multiplatform... - Kukjin