[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <159304588950.62212.14370493293554575629@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:44:49 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
Cc: linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Stevenson <dave.stevenson@...pberrypi.com>,
Tim Gover <tim.gover@...pberrypi.com>,
Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/27] clk: bcm: rpi: Use CCF boundaries instead of rolling our own
Quoting Maxime Ripard (2020-06-15 01:40:52)
> The raspberrypi firmware clock driver has a min_rate / max_rate clamping by
> storing the info it needs in a private structure.
>
> However, the CCF already provides such a facility, so we can switch to it
> to remove the boilerplate.
>
> Reviewed-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
> Tested-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
> ---
Applied to clk-next
Powered by blists - more mailing lists