From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3:PM: introduce enabled flag to omap_opp Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 16:25:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4ACFAA44.80901@ti.com> References: <1255120059-10768-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:34806 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755176AbZJIV0C (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Oct 2009 17:26:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto" Cc: linux-omap , Kevin Hilman , "Premi, Sanjeev" Madhu, Sergio, Aguirre Rodriguez, Sergio Alberto had written, on 10/09/2009 04:17 PM, the following: >> - {S125M, VDD1_OPP1, 0x1E}, >> + {true, S125M, VDD1_OPP1, 0x1E, true}, > > The last "true" here is wrong. > > Should just be: > {true, S125M, VDD1_OPP1, 0x1E}, thanks.. that is thanks to my hasty patch hand edition... apologies on the noise. :( I will send out a v2. Madhu, >> We used to enable and disable OPPs based on >> rate being set to 0, this has been confusing in >> general. So, allow specific OPPs to be now >> enabled/disabled by an explicit enabled flag. >> > > A dumb question, what is the intention of this flag? > the idea was to allow a field to properly disable the OPP instead of reusing rate flag itself. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon