From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 08/10] PM / OPP: Allow platform specific custom set_opp() callbacks Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:04:19 -0800 Message-ID: <20161130220419.GL6095@codeaurora.org> References: <152e4a2c876449f3e47c206f5120cafdfd48b976.1480481312.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <152e4a2c876449f3e47c206f5120cafdfd48b976.1480481312.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , robh@kernel.org, d-gerlach@ti.com, broonie@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/30, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The generic set_opp() handler isn't sufficient for platforms with > complex DVFS. For example, some TI platforms have multiple regulators > for a CPU device. The order in which various supplies need to be > programmed is only known to the platform code and its best to leave it > to it. > > This patch implements APIs to register platform specific set_opp() > callback. > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar > Tested-by: Dave Gerlach > > --- Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd So this one has the same set/put problem the other APIs has? Presumably we're going to need to fix and change the API that is introduced here. Wouldn't it be better to do that first though? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project