On 1 December 2016 at 16:28, 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. > > V6->V7: > - Added RBY from Stephen for the 8th patch as well. > - Rebased over pm/bleeding-edge as the dependency patch is already > applied there. > - s/dev_pm_opp_set_regulator()/dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() in a comment. > - Removed the local 'names' array in cpufreq-dt and used "&name" > instead. > - Only the 6th patch doesn't have a Reviewed-by Tag now.. Hi Rafael, V6 of this series received some minor comments [1] and I have resolved them all here. Now that the merge window is so close, I think we should be merge it now so that it gets a chance to live in linux-next for few days. -- viresh [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=148054543630253&w=2 -- 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
