[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 00/27] ARM: davinci: convert to common clo ck framework​
On 06/26/2018 07:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Friday 25 May 2018 11:51 PM, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 05/22/2018 04:38 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>> On Friday 18 May 2018 10:18 PM, David Lechner wrote:
>>>> This series converts mach-davinci to use the common clock framework.
>>>> The series works like this, the first 3 patches fix some issues with
>>>> the clock
>>>> drivers that have already been accepted into the mainline kernel.
>>>> Then, starting with "ARM: davinci: pass clock as parameter to
>>>> davinci_timer_init()", we get the mach code ready for the switch by
>>>> adding the
>>>> code needed for the new clock drivers and adding #ifndef
>>>> around the legacy clocks so that we can switch easily between the old
>>>> and the
>>>> new.
>>>> "ARM: davinci: switch to common clock framework" actually flips the
>>>> switch
>>>> to start using the new clock drivers. Then the next 8 patches remove all
>>>> of the old clock code.
>>>> The final four patches add device tree clock support to the one SoC that
>>>> supports it.
>>>> This series has been tested on TI OMAP-L138 LCDK (both device tree
>>>> and legacy
>>>> board file).
>>> If you do end up sending a v12, you can leave out the mach-davinci
>>> portions unless there are any changes you need to make. I will pick them
>>> up from this series once the driver dependencies are merged.
>>> I do hope the drivers/clk/* changes can be merged from v4.18.
>> I have resent all of the clk patches (including all of the ones I listed as
>> dependencies in addition to the three remaining in this series) under the
>> cover "clk: davinci: outstanding fixes​".
>> I also found that we need to add power-domains properties to the PWM nodes
>> in "ARM: dts: da850: Add clocks". I probably should just take your advice
>> and just globally added them even if they are not documented for some types
>> ofnodes.
> I think doing it en masse will be controversial. Just add it to PWM
> nodes for now (I am assuming the binding documentation agrees).
> I have applied this series so please send any more changes as follow-on
> patches.
> Thanks
> Sekhar

FYI, there are some CPU frequency scaling patches that I was playing around
with, but I don't plan on submitting them since they aren't much use to me
at the moment. If anyone would like to pick them up, you can find them at

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-26 17:34    [W:0.104 / U:45.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site