On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:52:43AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 12/09/16 21:50, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > >>> Sorry. I forgot to mention that the TEGRA210_CLK_APE_SLCG_OVR > >>> clock is required for the tests. So I cherry-picked 2 patches > >>> from your audio branch to the linux-next: > >>> clk: tegra210: Add SLCG override gate clocks > >>> ARM64: tegra: DT: Add SLCG clock for AUD > > > >>> And it seems that you've submitted that patch once but it got > >>> hold because it wasn't so useful at that time? > > > >> Yes it was not being used at the time. It is on my list of things to do > >> and we need to revisit it. There was some discussion on the best way to > >> handle these clocks from a client perspective. I am not sure we came to > >> a conclusion on this. I need to find some time to look at this. > > > > I may also take a look to speed it up. Yet, putting that clock > > aside, how about this patch then? I think we don't need to wait > > for that clock patch in order to announce that we support this > > now on a specific SoC but can just treat it as a new feature of > > a DMA controller, which sounds quite plausible to me since the > > ADMA module is now being disabled in all dts files of existing > > SoCs -- There have to be some local changes in any way so as to > > test it with the mainline code. > > I am fine with the changes. However, I am wondering if we should sort > out this clock business first just in case someone tries to use this. I think that is better, so am dropping this series. -- ~Vinod -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
