[PATCH v3 5/5] cpufreq: qoriq: Don't look at clock implementation details

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote:
> > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface
> > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a
> > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that
> > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock.
> > > > 
> > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock
> > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree
> > > > description of the mux options.
> > > > 
> > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes
> > > > options that are valid.  The cpufreq driver was currently being overly
> > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq =
> > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum
> > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on
> > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar
> > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask
> > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that
> > > > are no longer valid.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes
> > > > to clk api usage
> > > > 
> > > >  drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------
> > > > -------
> > > >  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>
> > 
> > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set?
> 
> As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply 
> these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, 
> each of which will have patches that depend on it.

OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from Viresh.

Thanks,
Rafael