On Tuesday 25 June 2013 04:56 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> writes: > >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 04:17 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Santosh Shilimkar >>> <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well having voltage data in voltage domain was not my decision ;-) >>>> Instead of creating another set of dummy data, I just used what >>>> is out there(OMAP4) with clear comment that data needs to be updated. >>>> I don't see any problem in this considering we have devices booting >>>> and working nicely for OMAP5 >>> I really wish the OMAP5 devices(the latest ones from Fab) I have would >>> like to function at OMAP4 configurations! Unfortunately the devices >>> tend to follow the data manual for OMAP5. >>> *if* there is no need for it to boot, I suggest removing it. >>> >> I don't understand you. For OMAP5, that data without voltage >> controller support doesn't do anything bad. Since there was some >> dependency of voltage domain association whit PD's, I have to keep >> that. I never claimed that OMAP4 settings would work for OMAP5 >> in absolute terms. >> >> Feel free to post a patch with right data which you seems to have. >> I don't mind you removing that data as long as the device >> continues to boot. Patch welcome. > > Thanks to Rajendra's cleanup, I don't think we need dummy data anymore: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=137147503827947&w=2 > > That series is queued for v3.11. > I knew the series but wasn't sure about it getting queued up for 3.11. Nice to see the dependency is getting removed. Regards, Santosh -- 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
