From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: rcar: Add support for R8A7795 SoC Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:08:34 +0530 Message-ID: <20170816053834.GA24299@vireshk-i7> References: <1501852680-21127-1-git-send-email-horms+renesas@verge.net.au> <20170807033705.GE28857@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:37463 "EHLO mail-pg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751224AbdHPFih (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Aug 2017 01:38:37 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id y129so18318058pgy.4 for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:38:37 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Simon Horman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Magnus Damm , Linux PM list , Linux-Renesas On 14-08-17, 15:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > I'm still a bit confused about your original comment when introducing this > file with the ever-growing table of SoCs: > > "And for new platforms we may do things differently as they are going > to use opp-v2 bindings." > > Hence I was under the impression the growing would be mitigated by new SoCs > using the opp-v2 bindings instead, and not needing an entry in the table. > > Perhaps I have misunderstood that comment? Not really. I have sent two patches to take care of your concerns. Do let me know if you have any concerns with them. -- viresh