Gulati, Shweta wrote, on 03/03/2011 07:37 PM:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Menon, Nishanth<nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 15:39, Gulati, Shweta<shweta.gulati@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Menon, Nishanth<nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 14:57, Shweta Gulati<shweta.gulati@xxxxxx> wrote:
This Patch adds OPP enteries for IVA in OMAP4 OPP Table
and updates IVA voltage Rail values obtained from latest
OMAP4430 Data Manual Operating Condition Addendum.
Do you think we should add the version of the document in the commit
message - it looks like every "latest" version we look at has some
update, so we'd know what baseline the code currently maps to when we
do a git blame at a later point of time
Ok, Will do.
Sorry, one more tiny point I missed - for the sake of ensuring the
functional bisectability - could you do the following:
a) update voltages (MPU,IVA) for doc 0.3
b) introduce IVA OPPs
what do you think?
I think its better to submit MPU and IVA domain Patches seperately
The way I have done:
1. Patch Series that has MPU OPP Table and Voltage Rail Value changes.
2. Patch which adds IVA OPP Entries and updates Voltage Rail values.
Thank you, but I had already understood what had been done. I was
wondering if there is a reason why not we do:
a) voltage updates on the code we already have - this categorizes as a fix
b) introduce OPP entries for IVA - this in a way categorizes as a
"feature addition"
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
