From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: OMAP2+: PM: core support for SMPS regulators for v3.4 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:32:18 -0800 Message-ID: <20120309003217.GB12083@atomide.com> References: <877gywjhht.fsf@ti.com> <20120308021843.GQ12083@atomide.com> <87399jc6cj.fsf@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:33803 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753895Ab2CIAcW (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Mar 2012 19:32:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87399jc6cj.fsf@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman , Mark Brown Cc: linux-omap , linux-arm-kernel * Kevin Hilman [120308 09:37]: > Tony Lindgren writes: > > > * Kevin Hilman [120307 11:42]: > >> Tony, > >> > >> Please pull the following support for using regulators to control the > >> on-chip VC/VP managed voltage domains. > >> > >> The regulator driver support for this is already queued in the regulator > >> tree, and this is the supporting core work. > >> > >> This combined with the CPUfreq changes to use the regulator framework > >> will finally result in MPU DVFS working in mainline. > > > > Nice.. However this one might be missing some header changes? > > Oh, that's because it depends on the regulator core changes that are in > Mark's regulator tree. You need the for-next branch of : > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git > > For this to compile correctly. > > Sorry, I should've been more clear above about the build dependency. Hmm just checking.. Recently Mark replied to Peter: * Mark Brown [120228 02:17]: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:40:10AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > > NOTE: this series has been generated agains Takashi's topic/asoc branch merged > > with Mark's for-next branch since this series depends on changes in Marks' > > branch, but not yet pulled by Takashi (snd_soc_add_dai_controls implementation > > from Liam). > > Never base *anything* off my for-next branch, it gets rebuilt regularly. So can you guys please confirm that if is indeed an immutable commit to use as a base to merge in something? Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 16:32:18 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL] ARM: OMAP2+: PM: core support for SMPS regulators for v3.4 In-Reply-To: <87399jc6cj.fsf@ti.com> References: <877gywjhht.fsf@ti.com> <20120308021843.GQ12083@atomide.com> <87399jc6cj.fsf@ti.com> Message-ID: <20120309003217.GB12083@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Kevin Hilman [120308 09:37]: > Tony Lindgren writes: > > > * Kevin Hilman [120307 11:42]: > >> Tony, > >> > >> Please pull the following support for using regulators to control the > >> on-chip VC/VP managed voltage domains. > >> > >> The regulator driver support for this is already queued in the regulator > >> tree, and this is the supporting core work. > >> > >> This combined with the CPUfreq changes to use the regulator framework > >> will finally result in MPU DVFS working in mainline. > > > > Nice.. However this one might be missing some header changes? > > Oh, that's because it depends on the regulator core changes that are in > Mark's regulator tree. You need the for-next branch of : > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git > > For this to compile correctly. > > Sorry, I should've been more clear above about the build dependency. Hmm just checking.. Recently Mark replied to Peter: * Mark Brown [120228 02:17]: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 09:40:10AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > > NOTE: this series has been generated agains Takashi's topic/asoc branch merged > > with Mark's for-next branch since this series depends on changes in Marks' > > branch, but not yet pulled by Takashi (snd_soc_add_dai_controls implementation > > from Liam). > > Never base *anything* off my for-next branch, it gets rebuilt regularly. So can you guys please confirm that if is indeed an immutable commit to use as a base to merge in something? Regards, Tony