On 20-04-18, 09:50, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 04/20/2018 02:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 20-04-18, 10:15, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >> It still doesn't give the flexibility to switch between the two
> >> implementations boot time based on some firmware config(e.g. DT status
> >> property).
> >
On 04/20/2018 02:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 20-04-18, 10:15, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> It still doesn't give the flexibility to switch between the two
>> implementations boot time based on some firmware config(e.g. DT status
>> property).
>
> I agree, but it didn't look like they need flexibilit
On 20-04-18, 10:15, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> It still doesn't give the flexibility to switch between the two
> implementations boot time based on some firmware config(e.g. DT status
> property).
I agree, but it didn't look like they need flexibility :)
Lets see how the intend to use it. If they are
On 20/04/18 05:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19-04-18, 11:37, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 19/04/18 05:16, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 18-04-18, 08:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
From: Jim Quinlan
If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
approach can be use
On 19-04-18, 11:37, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 19/04/18 05:16, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 18-04-18, 08:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
> >> From: Jim Quinlan
> >>
> >> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
> >> approach can be used.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
> >
On 18 April 2018 at 09:37, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 04/18/2018 08:56 AM, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> From: Jim Quinlan
>>
>> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
>> approach can be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
>> ---
>> drive
On 04/19/2018 03:35 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 18/04/18 16:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> From: Jim Quinlan
>>
>> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
>> approach can be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
>> ---
>> drivers/cp
On 19/04/18 05:16, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 18-04-18, 08:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
>> From: Jim Quinlan
>>
>> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
>> approach can be used.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/brcm
On 18/04/18 16:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
> From: Jim Quinlan
>
> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
> approach can be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16
> 1 file
On 18-04-18, 08:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
> From: Jim Quinlan
>
> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
> approach can be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16
> 1 file
On 04/18/2018 08:56 AM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> From: Jim Quinlan
>
> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
> approach can be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16
> 1 f
From: Jim Quinlan
If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
approach can be used.
Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan
Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer
---
drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcm
12 matches
Mail list logo
