From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove unused voltagedomain data for AM33xx Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:01:09 -0700 Message-ID: <8738skaj16.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1371118124-15910-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:64909 "EHLO mail-pb0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751259Ab3FNOBM (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:01:12 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id mc8so601365pbc.18 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:01:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Paul Walmsley's message of "Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:46:33 +0000 (UTC)") Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: Rajendra Nayak , hvaibhav@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Paul Walmsley writes: > cc Kevin, Vaibhav > > On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > >> The powerdomain framework today expects to always have a voltagedomain >> associated with a given powerdomain. We already have AM33xx which >> has no Voltage Controller/Voltage Processor as part of PRCM. >> There are more SoCs' to follow starting with AM437x and DRA7xx >> which do not have VC/VP. >> >> Instead of adding dummy voltage domain data files, make the powerdomain >> framework aware of the fact that some SoCs' might not really have >> scalable voltage domains. > > Fine with me in principle if AM335x doesn't support voltage scaling. > Vaibhav, if this is okay for you, please ack it. > > Then, in terms of merging, probably Kevin would be the right person for > this since he's done much of the voltagedomain work. Yeah, I'll take this series after the minor issues I commented on are fixed, and Vaivhav ack's the AM33xx parts. Kevin