From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jh80.chung@samsung.com (Jaehoon Chung) Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:52:00 +0900 Subject: [PATCH v2 3/8] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc() In-Reply-To: References: <1443622064-14362-1-git-send-email-heiko@sntech.de> <17200614.QxCe8zAb7I@diego> <2695161.Z1IhqPE0bd@diego> <20151001173554.GB19319@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <560DF150.3000906@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/02/2015 06:05 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 1 October 2015 at 19:35, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 10/01, Heiko St?bner wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015, 11:54:24 schrieb Ulf Hansson: >>>> On 30 September 2015 at 16:55, Heiko St?bner wrote: >>>>> Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 16:42:05 schrieb Ulf Hansson: >>>>>> On 30 September 2015 at 16:07, Heiko Stuebner wrote: >>>>> The clock changes of course only touch internals of the phase-clocks, so >>>>> should have no problem going through another tree. >>>> >>>> What happens if I take mmc and dt changes, wouldn't I need the clock >>>> patches as well? >>> >>> The API stays of course the same, only the degree to settings translation gets >>> optimized, so I guess in the worst case you would get no good phase and thus >>> fall back to non-highspeed modes - but the system would stay running. >>> >>> But of course, if the clock maintainers could Ack the two clock patches and >>> everything would stay together that would work even better :-) >>> >> >> If Ulf doesn't want to take them we can apply them to clk tree. >> Otherwise, you can have my acked-by on the clk patches. > > I don't mind picking up the clock patches. So I consider this as an > ack for both patch 1 and patch2, thanks. > > Now, let's give Jaehoon some time to review the dw_mmc parts. I will check other patches on today, if it's ok, i will apply at my repository. Thanks for giving time! :) Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > Kind regards > Uffe >