[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161103184112.GB11071@kozik-lap>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 20:41:12 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org, heiko@...ech.de,
shawn.lin@...k-chips.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] ARM: dts: exynos: replace to "max-frequecy"
instead of "clock-freq-min-max"
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:21:32PM +0900, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> In drivers/mmc/core/host.c, there is "max-frequency" property.
> It should be same behavior. So Use the "max-frequency" instead of
> "clock-freq-min-max".
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250-artik5-eval.dts | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250-artik5.dtsi | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250-monk.dts | 2 +-
> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250-rinato.dts | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
This looks totally independent to rest of patches so it can be applied
separately without any functional impact (except lack of minimum
frequency). Is that correct?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists