On Fri, 2020-10-23 at 13:58 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23-10-20, 16:24, Hector Yuan wrote: > > This patchset includes 6 patches and depends on the MT6779 DTS patch[1] submitted by Hanks Chen. > > The first 3 patches are for CPUFREQ HW driver and device tree binding, which are already sent before separately [2][3]. For binding part, I add a new patch to add property in cpu schema. > > Besides, we add three more patches including EM power table, SVS CPU initialize, and cooling device. > > And even after so many versions of these you chose to name this V1. It > is very difficult for reviewers to find time to review your stuff, and > they expect some sort of summary from you on what exactly changed from > last version and you also need to name the current version currently. > > This should have been V8 and you should have added a "V7->V8 diff:" > section here, naming all the changes you did. Please send that as > reply to this email, so I can see what really changed. > Hi, Viresh Sorry for your inconvenience. #1~#3 is for cpufreq driver we have reviewed and the bindings which separate freq domain to CPU schema.There is no change for the driver itself. 1. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW 2. dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Document 'mtk,freq-domain' property 3. dt-bindings: cpufreq: add bindings for MediaTek cpufreq HW #4~#6 is for other CPU features, i.e. SVS [1] 4. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: register EM power table 5. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add SVS CPU initialization 6. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add cooling dev flag I supposed that it could be more clean to separate #4~#6 in another patchset.May I know is it okay to you? Or I should merge all of changes into v8 like you mentioned? Thank you. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20190906100514.30803-4-roger.lu%40mediatek.com/
