On 06/10/2013 09:14 AM, Tushar Behera wrote:
> On 06/08/2013 05:22 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> Hi Tushar,
>>
>> On Thursday 06 of June 2013 16:32:52 Tushar Behera wrote:
>>> Cpufreq driver for EXYNOS4210 is not a platform driver, hence it is not
>>> possible to provide the regulator supply name through DT bindings.
>>> Since the cpufreq driver requires the regulator to be named as
>>> 'vdd_arm', the related regulator name should be kept same.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts index bcf8079..bd5f589 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-origen.dts
>>> @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@
>>> };
>>>
>>> buck1_reg: BUCK1 {
>>> - regulator-name = "VDD_ARM_1.2V";
>>> + regulator-name = "vdd_arm";
>>
>> Yes, this is the hack I mentioned in my review of
>> [PATCH 0/2] Clock update for EXYNOS4210-CPUFREQ driver
>>
>
> We can hold this patch till we get to a conclusion for the above
> mentioned patch set.
>
Kukjin,
We have agreed to go ahead with this approach till the cpufreq driver
has not been modified.
Can you please take this patch now?
--
Tushar Behera
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
