On 24 November 2016 at 17:06, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Some platforms (like TI) have complex DVFS configuration for CPU > devices, where multiple regulators are required to be configured to > change DVFS state of the device. This was explained well by Nishanth > earlier [1]. > > One of the major complaints around multiple regulators case was that the > DT isn't responsible in any way to represent the order in which multiple > supplies need to be programmed, before or after a frequency change. It > was considered in this patch and such information is left for the > platform specific OPP driver now, which can register its own > opp_set_rate() callback with the OPP core and the OPP core will then > call it during DVFS. > > The patches are tested on Exynos5250 (Dual A15). I have hacked around DT > and code to pass values for multiple regulators and verified that they > are all properly read by the kernel (using debugfs interface). > > Dave Gerlach has already tested [2] it on the real TI platforms and it > works well for him. > > This is rebased over: linux-next branch in the PM tree. > > V3->V4: > - Separate out cpu-supply fix in the binding in a separate patch (Mark). > - Add more documentation to the binding to explain that the relation to > the supplies and the order of programming them is left for the > platform specific bindings and that every platform using multiple > regulators for their devices needs to provide a separate binding > document explaining their implementation (Mark). > - @Rob and Stephen: I have kept your Acks for the bindings as the > bindings only got a bit reworded (improved) since the time you guys > Acked them. Please let me know if you want more improvement in the > bindings now. > - V4 for 10/10 was sent earlier, which added a missing > rcu_read_unlock(). Nothing else changed in it. > - Added some missing Kernel documentation comments Hi Rafael, The first version of this series was sent on 4th of October and its been ~2 months now that this series is getting reviewed. All of the stuff has already been seen by Stephen and others. Mark had some particular concerns in V3, which I discussed with him over IRC and resolved. The DT bindings are already Acked by Rob and Stephen otherwise. Will it be possible to get this merged for 4.10-rc1, as no one has raised any objections so far? Looks like Stephen is a bit busy at the moment, and is unable to review stuff for now. I don't want to get this delayed by another merge cycle. If there are any shortcomings reported later by others, I can always go fix them very quickly. Thanks. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
