* Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> [160315 23:27]: > On 03/16/2016 04:44 AM, Robert Nelson wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>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? > > > >It really should be an optional flag that we can enable on a board by > >board basis.. > > I am fine with just changing the compatible string for DPLL5 to a new one. > > Tony, any comment on this? I guess I don't quite follow, do you just mean adding a new compatible for 36xx? Can we keep this workaround always enabled for 36xx or does it have some side effects? Regards, Tony -- 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
