Hi, >> Very good question, I think it's fine, would prefer it that way and will >> be merge it, but ianal. Wikipedia says that 2- and 3- clause BSD and GPLv2 are compatible, so let's trust random folks from the interwebz and go with BSD. >> Yeah, I think the L2 and cci being stuck at bl clocks are to blame >> again.. there was a lot of msm8996 cpufreq work but I am not sure if >> anybody got it to *actually* work in the end, I'll try to look into >> this soon(tm).. >> > Right, we have some lingering patches on our side for this as well, > unfortunately I have one db82c0 that gets unstable when we bring the > last 2 CPUs up to speed. > > I started looking at this and found that some care needs to be taken > when switching between the lower half and higher half of the frequencies > (or perhaps it was voltages?) Unfortunately I didn't conclude anything > in this area, but I would be happy to see this resolved. Yeah.. as if 96 didn't have enough problems already.. :/ >> That does look like a good idea, but I also think it would become a big >> >> mess if any of these pins turned out required for some obscure peripheral, >> >> and then I'd have to dig it out of there, re-create the pin definition outside >> >> and I think you know where this is going.. >> > But if this happens you need to override the giant pinctrl-0 in such > device dts and hope that you don't miss any of the entries anyways. Ok, you convinced me. >> Eh, Torvalds said 100 is fine :P >> > Right, 100 is the new "limit", but 80 is still a good target. What I'm > opposing is that you wrap at 44. That's what I get when I skip supper and don't feed my brain.. Ofc I can make it longer per-line, heh. V2 should hit your inbox soon. Konrad
