[PATCH v2 3/8] mmc: core: Add mmc_regulator_set_vqmmc()

[Jaehoon Chung]

On 10/02/2015 04:06 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2015, 11:52:00 schrieb Jaehoon Chung:
>> On 10/02/2015 06:05 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 1 October 2015 at 19:35, Stephen Boyd <sboyd at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> On 10/01, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>>>> Am Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015, 11:54:24 schrieb Ulf Hansson:
>>>>>> On 30 September 2015 at 16:55, Heiko Stübner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 16:42:05 schrieb Ulf Hansson:
>>>>>>>> On 30 September 2015 at 16:07, Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> 
> wrote:
>>>>>>> The clock changes of course only touch internals of the phase-clocks,
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> should have no problem going through another tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What happens if I take mmc and dt changes, wouldn't I need the clock
>>>>>> patches as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> The API stays of course the same, only the degree to settings
>>>>> translation gets optimized, so I guess in the worst case you would get
>>>>> no good phase and thus fall back to non-highspeed modes - but the
>>>>> system would stay running.
>>>>>
>>>>> But of course, if the clock maintainers could Ack the two clock patches
>>>>> and
>>>>> everything would stay together that would work even better :-)
>>>>
>>>> If Ulf doesn't want to take them we can apply them to clk tree.
>>>> Otherwise, you can have my acked-by on the clk patches.
>>>
>>> I don't mind picking up the clock patches. So I consider this as an
>>> ack for both patch 1 and patch2, thanks.
>>>
>>> Now, let's give Jaehoon some time to review the dw_mmc parts.
>>
>> I will check other patches on today, if it's ok, i will apply at my
>> repository. Thanks for giving time! :)
> 
> I think Ulf wanted to apply the whole series via the mmc tree directly, but I 
> guess that is between you two to decide ;-)

If it will get Stephen's acked-by, i will pick up all after checked the dwmmc patches. how about?

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

> 
> 
> Heiko
>