[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <vvmdk3fqtjt3jspxgvlbypdxajchymydshya5b5ivk3wfodwwr@yyi26m6toosh>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 14:27:46 +0200
From: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>
To: Frank Oltmanns <frank@...manns.dev>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Roman Beranek <me@...y.cz>,
Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] clk: sunxi-ng: Consider alternative parent rates
when determining NKM clock rate
On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 09:35:20AM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> So, my question: Is spending the 30 ms fine or do I need to optimize for
> speed in order for this patchset to be accepted? Or is 2 ms also too
> much of an increase, in which case I'm out of ideas. :-)
You keep mentioning it, but it's really not clear to me why you think
that both are intertwined, or depend on one another?
What's wrong with just merging (some later version of) this series?
Maxime
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists