[PATCH v1] cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for Mediatek cpufreq HW driver

[Hector Yuan]

On Fri, 2020-10-23 at 13:58 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-10-20, 16:24, Hector Yuan wrote:
> > This patchset includes 6 patches and depends on the MT6779 DTS patch[1] submitted by Hanks Chen.
> > The first 3 patches are for CPUFREQ HW driver and device tree binding, which are already sent before separately [2][3]. For binding part, I add a new patch to add property in cpu schema.
> > Besides, we add three more patches including EM power table, SVS CPU initialize, and cooling device.
> 
> And even after so many versions of these you chose to name this V1. It
> is very difficult for reviewers to find time to review your stuff, and
> they expect some sort of summary from you on what exactly changed from
> last version and you also need to name the current version currently.
> 
> This should have been V8 and you should have added a "V7->V8 diff:"
> section here, naming all the changes you did. Please send that as
> reply to this email, so I can see what really changed.
> 
Hi, Viresh

Sorry for your inconvenience.
#1~#3 is for cpufreq driver we have reviewed and the bindings which
separate freq domain to CPU schema.There is no change for the driver
itself.
  1. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add support for CPUFREQ HW
  2. dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Document 'mtk,freq-domain' property
  3. dt-bindings: cpufreq: add bindings for MediaTek cpufreq HW

#4~#6 is for other CPU features, i.e. SVS [1]
  4. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: register EM power table
  5. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add SVS CPU initialization
  6. cpufreq: mediatek-hw: Add cooling dev flag

I supposed that it could be more clean to separate #4~#6 in another
patchset.May I know is it okay to you? Or I should merge all of changes
into v8 like you mentioned? Thank you.

[1]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-mediatek/patch/20190906100514.30803-4-roger.lu%40mediatek.com/