[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <154818294180.20280.13967884067917226851@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:49:01 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
Cc: andy.gross@...aro.org, david.brown@...aro.org,
jassisinghbrar@...il.com, jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org,
mark.rutland@....com, mturquette@...libre.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
will.deacon@....com, vkoul@...nel.org, niklas.cassel@...aro.org,
sibis@...eaurora.org, georgi.djakov@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de,
horms+renesas@...ge.net.au, heiko@...ech.de,
enric.balletbo@...labora.com, jagan@...rulasolutions.com,
olof@...om.net, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] arm64: dts: qcom: qcs404: Add HFPLL node
Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-01-16 22:38:04)
> On Mon 17 Dec 11:39 PST 2018, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > Quoting Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz (2018-12-17 01:46:27)
> > > The high frequency pll functionality is required to enable CPU
> > > frequency scaling operation.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez-ortiz@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs404.dtsi | 9 +++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs404.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs404.dtsi
> > > index 4594fea7..ec3f6c7 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs404.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs404.dtsi
> > > @@ -375,6 +375,15 @@
> > > #mbox-cells = <1>;
> > > };
> > >
> > > + apcs_hfpll: clock-controller@...16000 {
> >
> > Drop leading 0 on unit address please.
> >
> > > + compatible = "qcom,hfpll";
> > > + reg = <0x0b016000 0x30>;
> >
> > Wow that is small!
> >
>
> I double checked and it's actually 0x34, but the last register is
> protected.
>
Ok, so then it should be 0x34? I don't think we've left out protected
registers from the size before.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists