From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Return-Path: Message-ID: <1502280893.2759.36.camel@baylibre.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] clk: implement clock rate protection mechanism From: Jerome Brunet To: Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-clk , Kevin Hilman , "open list:ARM/Amlogic Meson..." , Russell King , Boris Brezillon , Adriana Reus In-Reply-To: <150223201433.22158.14534387406241186358@resonance> References: <20170612194438.12298-1-jbrunet@baylibre.com> <1497955822.7387.3.camel@baylibre.com> <1497961950.7387.7.camel@baylibre.com> <1498050903.7387.12.camel@baylibre.com> <20170712011604.GQ22780@codeaurora.org> <1501088747.2401.27.camel@baylibre.com> <20170727224459.GO2146@codeaurora.org> <150223201433.22158.14534387406241186358@resonance> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 14:14:53 +0200 Mime-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 15:40 -0700, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2017-07-27 15:44:59) > > On 07/26, Jerome Brunet wrote: > > > In the following mail, I've only replied where I wanted to discuss a bit > > > more. > > > For everything else, please consider the comments agreed and the > > > modifications > > > done as requested. > > > > > > > Ok. Good that we can move forward in some way so this is not a > > blocker. I've almost completed writing the qcom code to force > > clks on and off so it will be resolved one way or the other soon. > > Stephen, are all of the existential issues are sufficiently resolved? > > Jerome, are you going to submit a v4? Once the current discussion reaches an agreement, yes for sure. If it helps, I could send it right now, with the points being discussed addressed > > Thanks, > Mike > > > > > --  > > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > > a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project