On 21-01-21, 00:57, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 18.01.2021 22:14, Dmitry Osipenko пишет: > > Sounds like it could be a lot of code moving and some extra complexity > > will be added to the code. If nobody will ever need the universal > > dev_pm_opp_set_opp(), then it could become a wasted effort. I'd choose > > the easiest path, i.e. to defer the dev_pm_opp_set_opp() implementation > > until somebody will really need it. > > > > But if it looks to you that it won't be a too much effort, then I'll > > appreciate if you could type the patch. Yes. > Let's start with dev_pm_opp_set_voltage() for now. It shouldn't be a > problem at all to upgrade it to dev_pm_opp_set_opp() later on. > > I'll make a v4 with the dev_pm_opp_set_voltage(), please let me know if > you have objections or more suggestions! Sorry about this, I have been working on this stuff for last 2 days. I didn't reply earlier as I thought I would be able to finish this earlier. Once you see the patches you will see it was a significant change :) I have cc'd you to the relevant patches now. Please see if they work fine for you or not. -- viresh
