linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: Add support for AM3517

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]

Date:   Mon, 9 Sep 2019 20:13:03 +0200
From:   "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
To:     Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, neolynx@...il.com,
        letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org, andreas@...nade.info,
        tony@...mide.com, adam.ford@...icpd.com,
        Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: Add support for AM3517

Hi Adam,

> Am 09.09.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>:
> 
> The AM3517 only lists 600MHz @ 1.2V, but the revister values for

a small typo...

s/revister/register/

> 0x4830A204 = 1b86 802f, it seems like am3517 might be a derivative
> of the omap36 which has OPPs would be OPP50 (300 MHz) and OPP100
> (600 MHz).
> 
> This patch simply enable adds the am3517 to the compatible table
> using the omap3630 structure instead of the 3430.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> index f2f58d689320..6b69fb1d6bdf 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_setup_syscon_register(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data)
> 
> static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = {
> 	{ .compatible = "ti,am33xx", .data = &am3x_soc_data, },
> +	{ .compatible = "ti,am3517", .data = &omap36xx_soc_data, },
> 	{ .compatible = "ti,am43", .data = &am4x_soc_data, },
> 	{ .compatible = "ti,dra7", .data = &dra7_soc_data },
> 	{ .compatible = "ti,omap34xx", .data = &omap34xx_soc_data, },
> -- 
> 2.17.1
> 

Looks good to me.

Should I include your two patches to my patch set (and resend)?
Or should we keep them separated?

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus