| Message ID | 87pqchv1pc.fsf@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote: > Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies > merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree. > Has this been lost now? It seems regulator parts got merged, but voltage parts are missing from Arnd's pull requests and are not showing up in linux-next. Was looking forward for voltage control in 3.4 to achieve higher clock rates on our aging OMAP3 hardware. > > The following changes since commit b01543dfe67bb1d191998e90d20534dc354de059: > > Linux 3.3-rc4 (2012-02-18 15:53:33 -0800) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/khilman/linux-omap-pm.git for_3.4/pm/smps-regulator > > for you to fetch changes up to 39358f2b57f37fe079eff4159307c844a0bfb176: > > Merge branch 'pm-wip/smps-regulator' into for_3.4/pm/smps-regulator (2012-03-12 15:36:45 -0700) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kevin Hilman (3): > ARM: OMAP2+: voltage: ensure voltage used is exact voltage from OPP table > Merge tag 'topic/twl' into for_3.4/pm/smps-regulator > Merge branch 'pm-wip/smps-regulator' into for_3.4/pm/smps-regulator > > Laxman Dewangan (1): > regulator: twl6030: Fix voltage selection logic > > Peter Ujfalusi (2): > regulator: twl-regulator: Add fixed LDO for V1V8, V2V1 supply > mfd: twl-core: regulator configuration for twl6030 V1V8, V2V1 SMPS > > Rajendra Nayak (1): > regulator: twl: adapt twl-regulator driver to dt > > Tero Kristo (6): > arm: omap3: voltage: fix channel configuration > arm: omap3: add common twl configurations for vdd1 and vdd2 > arm: omap3: twl: add external controllers for core voltage regulators > arm: omap4: add common twl configurations for vdd1, vdd2 and vdd3 > regulator: twl4030: add support for external voltage get/set > regulator: twl6030: add support for vdd1, vdd2 and vdd3 regulators > > .../bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt | 68 ++++ > arch/arm/mach-omap2/twl-common.c | 147 +++++++++ > arch/arm/mach-omap2/vc3xxx_data.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-omap2/voltage.c | 21 +- > drivers/mfd/twl-core.c | 41 ++- > drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c | 327 +++++++++++++++----- > include/linux/i2c/twl.h | 14 +- > 7 files changed, 532 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/twl-regulator.txt > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Gražvydas
* Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@gmail.com> [120327 07:00]: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote: > > Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies > > merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree. > > > > Has this been lost now? It seems regulator parts got merged, but > voltage parts are missing from Arnd's pull requests and are not > showing up in linux-next. > Was looking forward for voltage control in 3.4 to achieve higher clock > rates on our aging OMAP3 hardware. Sounds like this is something we should get merged early to arm-soc tree after the merge window. Regards, Tony
Grazvydas Ignotas <notasas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 1:28 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> wrote: >> Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies >> merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree. >> > > Has this been lost now? It seems regulator parts got merged, but > voltage parts are missing from Arnd's pull requests and are not > showing up in linux-next. Not lost, just delayed. Due to problems in working out the dependencies with the regulator core, this pull request was too late to make it for v3.4. Kevin
* Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [120312 16:30]: > Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:26:53AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> writes: > > > >> > The branch itself is essentially stable but I'm not enthused about the > >> > idea of merging the whole thing via the OMAP tree. > > > >> Right, I wasn't suggesting we merge it via OMAP tree. I was just > >> looking for a stable point we could use as s dependency when merging > >> everything together for the arm-soc tree. > > > > Well, if you don't base the OMAP changes that depend on it off the > > regulator changes then you'll break bisection as you'll have a bunch of > > commits which won't have all their dependencies present on a branch > > (since they're not present in the branch point and aren't otherwise > > merged in), if bisect goes down that branch it'll be miserable. That > > seems bad and while I've not run into it with OMAP in particular it's > > rather painful when it does happen. > > > > It's much better if the branch has the required changes merged into it > > prior to their being used. > > OK. > > Tony, updated pull request below. This includes all the TWL depencies > merged from the 'topic/twl' tag in Mark's tree. Pulled in this into pm-regulator branch finally. Tony