>From: Dasgupta, Romit >Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:43 PM >To: Cousson, Benoit; Menon, Nishanth >Cc: linux-omap; Andrew Murray; Kevin Hilman >Subject: RE: [PATCH] omap3: pm: cpufreq: populate l3 opp1 again > >> >IMHO the best way to unconfuse readers is to remove the entry. >> >> The confusion is due to a mismatch between public TRM/white paper and >> current code, so maybe a simple comment on top of the >> omap34xx_l3_rate_table will be enough. >> >But why do we want to keep an OPP that will never be used? I don't want to keep it. I just want to document it in order to explain why the code is not aligned with the public doc. Andrew did ask the question so the answer might be useful for others as well, hence a small comment on top of the CORE OPP list. Benoit Texas Instruments France SA, 821 Avenue Jack Kilby, 06270 Villeneuve Loubet. 036 420 040 R.C.S Antibes. Capital de EUR 753.920 -- 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
