From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0139.outbound.protection.outlook.com [157.56.110.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7FD41A0391 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2015 07:17:23 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1443215827.32298.130.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details From: Scott Wood To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: Viresh Kumar , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , "Russell King" , , , , , Tang Yuantian Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 16:17:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1442723397-26329-1-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <1442723397-26329-6-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com> <20150922194654.GJ24314@linux> <3374654.Hks5DeSGVV@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree > > > description of the mux options. > > > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that > > > are no longer valid. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood > > > --- > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes > > > to clk api usage > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------------------- > > > ------- > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar > > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, each of which will have patches that depend on it. -Scott