From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/24] ARM: OMAP2+: clock: remove support for legacy mpurate command line param Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:32:55 -0800 Message-ID: <20150306153254.GK13520@atomide.com> References: <1425644939-3232-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1425644939-3232-12-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org ([54.191.214.3]:41587 "EHLO pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754387AbbCFPiT (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:38:19 -0500 Received: from smtp4.ore.mailhop.org (172.31.18.134) by pmta1.delivery1.ore.mailhop.org id hv74te20r84b for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:37:58 +0000 (envelope-from ) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425644939-3232-12-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Tero Kristo Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, paul@pwsan.com, mturquette@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Tero Kristo [150306 04:29]: > The legacy support is wrong and dangerous, as it doesn't take any > OPPs into account and does not scale voltages. Switching mpurate should > be handled through cpufreq. Hmm I wonder if some systems actually rely on the mpurate cmdline parameter. If this cannot be fixed properly, you should at least print an error here. Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:32:55 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 11/24] ARM: OMAP2+: clock: remove support for legacy mpurate command line param In-Reply-To: <1425644939-3232-12-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> References: <1425644939-3232-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1425644939-3232-12-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> Message-ID: <20150306153254.GK13520@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Tero Kristo [150306 04:29]: > The legacy support is wrong and dangerous, as it doesn't take any > OPPs into account and does not scale voltages. Switching mpurate should > be handled through cpufreq. Hmm I wonder if some systems actually rely on the mpurate cmdline parameter. If this cannot be fixed properly, you should at least print an error here. Regards, Tony