On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 09:39:03AM +0530, Sricharan R wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On 10/18/2018 1:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2018-10-17 08:44:12) > >> Quoting Sricharan R (2018-09-20 06:03:31) > >>> > >>> > >>> On 9/20/2018 1:54 AM, Craig wrote: > >>>> Yup, this patch seems to have fixed the higher frequencies from the quick test I did. > >>>> > >>> Thanks !!. Can i take that as > >>> Tested-by: Craig Tatlor <ctatlor97@xxxxxxxxx> ? > >>> > >> > >> Is this patch series going to be resent? > >> > > > > Nevermind. Looking at it I think I can apply all the clk ones and we're > > good to go. If you can send a followup patch series to change the > > registration and provider APIs to be clk_hw instead of clk based I would > > appreciate it. > > > > Sorry for the late response. Was away. > Only pending thing was separating out the binding documentation for the cpu-freq > driver and fixing the text in documentation. That means, yes its fine to merge > the clk ones as you said. I will resend that. Also, will send a follow up series for clk_hw to > clk change as you mentioned separately. Hello Sricharan, Great to see that the clk parts has been marged to clk-next! Are you also planning on sending out a new version of the cpufreq driver consolidation parts? I'm planning on extending your consilidated cpufreq driver with support for msm8916 (Cortex-A53), where I plan to read PVS/speedbin, in order to set opp_supported_hw(), and also register with cpufreq (since Viresh/Ulf suggested that we shouldn't register with cpufreq in the CPR power-domain driver). Kind regards, Niklas
