From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 07:41:18 +0530 Message-ID: <20161012021118.GA19385@vireshk-i7> References: <57FBEA16.2010502@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f173.google.com ([209.85.192.173]:34289 "EHLO mail-pf0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753067AbcJLCLW (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2016 22:11:22 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 190so11282175pfv.1 for ; Tue, 11 Oct 2016 19:11:22 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57FBEA16.2010502@ti.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Gerlach Cc: Rafael Wysocki , nm@ti.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , robh@kernel.org, broonie@kernel.org On 10-10-16, 14:20, Dave Gerlach wrote: > Cool, I'm reviewing these patches still but I definitely plan to test them > out on the TI platforms requiring multi-regulator support. At first glance > it looks like it does give us the hooks we need. I believe we can use > cpufreq-dt as is and just provide the regulators before it probes. Yes you can. That's how I tested it as well. -- viresh