[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF17761F1220@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:03:30 -0800
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
To: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>
CC: Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 0/3] Tegra30 clockframework
Peter De Schrijver wrote at Monday, January 02, 2012 8:18 AM:
> This patchset introduces the tegra30 clockframework. Clocks which require
> voltage scaling are not included in this version. The implementation doesn't
> use the generic clock code yet. It's the intention to move to it, once the
> semantics are fully clarified.
I'm not particularly familiar with Tegra's clocks, but nothing really
stood out as wrong with this patch on a quick look-through. It'd be great
if someone like Colin could look this over.
A couple thoughts below. You've probably thought about some of these
already, but I just wanted to make sure:-)
* Are we following the common clock stuff so we can move over once it's
ready?
* Are Tegra20 and Tegra30 so different we can't re-use any of the code
in tegra2_clocks.c for Tegra30?
* The device names in the peripheral clock table might benefit from a
review to make sure they match tegra2_clocks.c for the drivers we've
actually upstreamed at least.
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists