Hi Niklas, On 10/22/2018 9:00 PM, Niklas Cassel wrote: > 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? > yeah right, will send a new version, sometime next week. > 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). ok sure. Regards, Sricharan -- "QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
