From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
nm@ti.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
robh@kernel.org, d-gerlach@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 09:19:22 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161122034922.GC3070@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161118104329.27xpm7cshfpxykqd@sirena.org.uk>
On 18-11-16, 10:43, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 08:36:36AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > Can we please get this series reviewed quickly and come to a conclusion? It has
> > already taken a lot of time getting this merged and the present code seems to be
> > the best possible shot we have, AFAIU.
>
> There already seems to be extensive, ongoing discusion about this...
And I am quite sure we are stuck again :)
I just wanted to say that we should get it to some sort of conclusion. And yes I
want to say thanks to all who invested their time on this thread :)
So the LAST remaining question is:
"How do we know (from the DT) the order in which entries for multiple regulators
are present in the OPP table?"
And I am not sure if we can do that without having a property like:
+ supply-names = "vcc0", "vcc1", "vcc2";
in the OPP table or the consumer device. And surely it isn't a clean enough
solution and that's why this series relied on the code to get such details.
Does someone have an alternative? If NO, can we go ahead with this series as is?
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-22 3:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-26 6:32 [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 1/9] PM / OPP: Reword binding supporting multiple regulators per device Viresh Kumar
2016-11-09 14:58 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-10 4:04 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 16:36 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-10 18:09 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 22:51 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-11 3:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-15 1:59 ` Rob Herring
2016-11-15 2:13 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-15 3:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-15 18:56 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-15 22:11 ` Dave Gerlach
2016-11-16 3:18 ` Viresh Kumar
[not found] ` <20161115185645.GA25626-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org>
2016-11-16 3:08 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 2/9] PM / OPP: Don't use OPP structure outside of rcu protected section Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 3/9] PM / OPP: Manage supply's voltage/current in a separate structure Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:32 ` [PATCH V3 4/9] PM / OPP: Pass struct dev_pm_opp_supply to _set_opp_voltage() Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 5/9] PM / OPP: Add infrastructure to manage multiple regulators Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 6/9] PM / OPP: Separate out _generic_opp_set_rate() Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 7/9] PM / OPP: Allow platform specific custom set_opp() callbacks Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 8/9] PM / OPP: Don't WARN on multiple calls to dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() Viresh Kumar
2016-10-26 6:33 ` [PATCH V3 9/9] PM / OPP: Don't assume platform doesn't have regulators Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 1:17 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-10 5:16 ` [PATCH V4 " Viresh Kumar
2016-11-02 4:51 ` [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Viresh Kumar
2016-11-10 1:19 ` Stephen Boyd
2016-11-10 4:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-15 22:10 ` [TEST PATCH] WIP: Test OPP multi regulator support with ti-opp-domain driver Dave Gerlach
2016-11-16 1:38 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-16 2:01 ` kbuild test robot
2016-11-16 3:27 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-18 3:06 ` [PATCH V3 0/9] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support Viresh Kumar
2016-11-18 10:43 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-22 3:49 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2016-11-22 18:41 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-23 3:46 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-23 12:29 ` Mark Brown
2016-11-24 5:07 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-11-24 10:19 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161122034922.GC3070@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=d-gerlach@ti.com \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nm@ti.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).