linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: twl6040: Handle mclk used for HPPLL and optional internal clock source

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b8e0eb46-8697-ef02-eef4-2d3fe8136707@ti.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:23:02 +0300
From:	Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
CC:	Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <tony@...mide.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: twl6040: Handle mclk used for HPPLL and optional
 internal clock source

On 06/07/16 12:17, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> 
>> Lee,
>>
>> On 05/16/16 18:02, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:13:29PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>>> On some boards, like omap5-uevm the MCLK is gated by default and in order
>>>> to be able to use the High performance modes of twl6040 it need to be
>>>> enabled by SW.
>>>> Add support for handling the MCLK source clock via CCF.
>>>> At the same time lover the print priority of the notification that the 32K
>>>> clock is not proveded so it is not going to be handled by the driver.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/twl6040.txt |  4 +--
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>>
>> Can you take a look at this patch if it is OK to pick?
> 
> Yes, when I get around to it.
> 
> I currently have 75 patch review to conduct in my inbox.  Some of them
> are quite large and complex.  They will be seen to in the order they
> were sent, and you just bumped this patch to "sent today". ;)

I'm sorry for this. I did not intended to interfere with your workflow. I will
be more patient next time, it is hard to know if I should bump the thread or
resend or wait.

Sorry again,
Péter