On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 08:25:06AM +0000, Richard Watts wrote: > [snip] > >Yes, I think we should add a top-level ops for dpll5, that would > >determine if table dividers shall be used first, if not, then just call > >the generic implementation. Just tried that and it looks reasonable. Will send patch after cleanup. > >I would also add a new compatible string for the purpose, this means the > >users must update both kernel + DTB but I believe any OMAPx customers > >are doing this anyway. > > Should DTB also carry fixup table? > I'd agree - sadly I didn't have time (and still don't have much), so I > never did it, Was there any consensus how to pick between workarounds for 26MHz? > I believe there was a patch in the linux-omap tree for a while, but > I don't know what happened to it - it seems not to have made it to > mainline, Quick search of git history didn't find anything interesting, but it wouldn't make it easier anyway :-) ladis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
