Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-20 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 17-02-17, 15:22, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Viresh Kumar writes: > > > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the > > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-20 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 17-02-17, 15:22, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Viresh Kumar writes: > > > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the > > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > > easier to

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-17 Thread Kevin Hilman
Viresh Kumar writes: > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > easier to understand for all. The

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-17 Thread Kevin Hilman
Viresh Kumar writes: > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > easier to understand for all. The bindings can be decided and

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-16 Thread Ulf Hansson
On 17 February 2017 at 06:38, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 09-02-17, 09:11, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support >> that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. > > @Kevin and Ulf, > > Is there

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-16 Thread Ulf Hansson
On 17 February 2017 at 06:38, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 09-02-17, 09:11, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support >> that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. > > @Kevin and Ulf, > > Is there something wrong with this series?

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-16 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 09-02-17, 09:11, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support > that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. @Kevin and Ulf, Is there something wrong with this series? Its been 7 weeks since this series is getting posted and I

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-16 Thread Viresh Kumar
On 09-02-17, 09:11, Viresh Kumar wrote: > The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support > that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. @Kevin and Ulf, Is there something wrong with this series? Its been 7 weeks since this series is getting posted and I

[PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-08 Thread Viresh Kumar
Hi, An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things easier to understand for all. The bindings can be decided and merged later. The bindings

[PATCH V2 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

2017-02-08 Thread Viresh Kumar
Hi, An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually merge the supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things easier to understand for all. The bindings can be decided and merged later. The bindings