On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:50:50 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:03:51 PM Leonard Crestez wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:04 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 22-03-17, 18:53, Leonard Crestez wrote: > > > > If the cpufreq driver tries to modify voltage/freq during suspend/resume > > > > it might need to control an external PMIC via I2C or SPI but those > > > > devices might be already suspended. > > > > > > > > To avoid this scenario we just increase cpufreq to highest setpoint > > > > before suspend. This issue can easily be triggered by ldo-bypass but in > > > > theory any regulator set_voltage call can end up having to modify > > > > external supply voltages. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c | 2 ++ > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > The first couple of patches are obvious fixes despite being marked as > > RFC. It would be great if you could apply them to your tree separately > > Why? > > > from the rest of the series but I'm not sure what the process is here. > > Well, you have to talk to me. OK, so if I understand this correctly, you would like the patches ACKed by Viresh to be applied regardless of what happens to the rest of the series, right? In that case please resend them separately without the [RFC] tag and with the ACKs from Viresh. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
