Dear Arnd Bergmann,
On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 15:59:14 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
I still don't see where it does that. All I see for mvebu is
platform_device_register_simple(cpufreq-dt, -1, NULL, 0);
without any platform data. I see this patch
Hi Guys,
DT based cpufreq drivers doesn't require much support from platform code now a
days as most of the stuff is moved behind generic APIs. Like clk APIs for
changing clock rates, regulator APIs for changing voltages, etc.
One of the bottleneck still left was how to select which cpufreq
On Monday 01 December 2014 17:11:21 Viresh Kumar wrote:
DT based cpufreq drivers doesn't require much support from platform code now a
days as most of the stuff is moved behind generic APIs. Like clk APIs for
changing clock rates, regulator APIs for changing voltages, etc.
One of the
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
:)
Your patches seem well-implemented, so if everybody thinks the general
approach is the best solution, we should do that. From my point of view,
there
On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
:)
Your patches seem well-implemented, so if everybody thinks the general
approach is the best solution, we
On Monday 01 December 2014 18:59:20 Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
:)
Your patches seem well-implemented, so if everybody thinks the general
approach is the
On Monday 01 December 2014 13:35:25 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
Your patches seem well-implemented, so if
On 1 December 2014 at 19:35, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
I guess a string would be better here, the idea here was to
have a different bool property per driver, which would also
work.
Hmm, I will prefer string as we don't need to define any more bindings then
for new drivers.
@@
On 1 December 2014 at 19:41, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
I would prefer the /cpus node over the /chosen node because the former
describes the hardware while the latter is supposed to be user-settable
(on real open-firmware at least). But I think either one is better than
using the /
On Monday 01 December 2014 20:18:10 Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 19:35, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
I guess a string would be better here, the idea here was to
have a different bool property per driver, which would also
work.
Hmm, I will prefer string as we don't need
On 01/12/14 14:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 December 2014 13:35:25 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this, we really need to figure it out one day!
Your patches
On Monday 01 December 2014 15:07:15 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 14:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 December 2014 13:35:25 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Thanks a lot for working on this,
On 01/12/14 16:03, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 December 2014 15:07:15 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 14:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 01 December 2014 13:35:25 Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 01/12/14 13:29, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 1 December 2014 at 18:24, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Monday 01 December 2014 17:11:21 Viresh Kumar wrote:
DT based cpufreq drivers doesn't require much support from platform code now
a
days as most of the stuff is moved behind generic APIs. Like clk APIs for
changing clock
14 matches
Mail list logo
