[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohponvN3rAvJrfi4TojFcq5gq7r2oNE4Q0_NtwBHmEZ8waBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 07:45:55 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arvind Chauhan <arvind.chauhan@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Sachin Kamat <spk.linux@...il.com>,
Thomas P Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0
On 27 June 2014 07:23, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> wrote:
>> but it isn't future-proof if/when the clock framework starts returning
>> dynamically allocated clock pointers for each clk_get() invocation.
>> Maybe we need a function in the common clock framework that tells us if
>> the clocks are the same either via DT or by taking two clock pointers?
>
> I looked through the patch briefly and did not see why we would need to
> do this. Any hint?
We want to know which CPUs are sharing clock line, so that we can
fill affected-cpus field of cpufreq core.
--
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