| Message ID | 6596e97e054647fecb016ecb7e1935aa2b7db954.1403681315.git.horms+renesas@verge.net.au (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote: > From: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com> > > Mark all SoCs in shmobile as CPUFreq capable > on multiplatform build only. > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com> > [gaku.inami.xw@bp.renesas.com: Move the definition of cpufreq capable] > Signed-off-by: Gaku Inami <gaku.inami.xw@bp.renesas.com> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > --- > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig > index dbd954e..c32fa7c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ config ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI > select NO_IOPORT_MAP > select PINCTRL > select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB > + select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ > + select ARCH_HAS_OPP https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/2/714 http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/356780/
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:26:24PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Simon Horman > <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote: > > From: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com> > > > > Mark all SoCs in shmobile as CPUFreq capable > > on multiplatform build only. > > > > Signed-off-by: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com> > > [gaku.inami.xw@bp.renesas.com: Move the definition of cpufreq capable] > > Signed-off-by: Gaku Inami <gaku.inami.xw@bp.renesas.com> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig > > index dbd954e..c32fa7c 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig > > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ config ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI > > select NO_IOPORT_MAP > > select PINCTRL > > select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB > > + select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ > > + select ARCH_HAS_OPP > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/2/714 > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/356780/ I believe this patch was queued up before those patches hit Linus's tree. In the case of ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ, a subsequent patch in this pull-request, "ARM: shmobile: Remove ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ config for shmobile", removes it. Inami-san, could you see about making a patch to remove ARCH_HAS_OPP too?
On 25 June 2014 14:56, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > In the case of ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ, a subsequent patch in > this pull-request, "ARM: shmobile: Remove ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ config for shmobile", > removes it. Hmm.. I fail to see why you are adding it in the first place then ?
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 03:00:08PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 June 2014 14:56, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > > In the case of ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ, a subsequent patch in > > this pull-request, "ARM: shmobile: Remove ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ config for shmobile", > > removes it. > > Hmm.. I fail to see why you are adding it in the first place then ? Because it seemed to be right thing to do when the patch was written and accepted.
On 25 June 2014 17:08, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > Because it seemed to be right thing to do when the patch was written > and accepted. But it isn't merged yet, just drop irrelevant patches. Wouldn't make any sense to get these into kernel.
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 05:09:59PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 25 June 2014 17:08, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > > Because it seemed to be right thing to do when the patch was written > > and accepted. > > But it isn't merged yet, just drop irrelevant patches. Wouldn't make any > sense to get these into kernel. Its been sitting in next and as I understand things it is frowned upon to rebase branches that are in next unless it is really necessary.
Hi Simon-san, (2014/06/25 18:26), Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 02:26:24PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Simon Horman >> <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> wrote: >>> From: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com> >>> >>> Mark all SoCs in shmobile as CPUFreq capable >>> on multiplatform build only. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Benoit Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com> >>> [gaku.inami.xw@bp.renesas.com: Move the definition of cpufreq capable] >>> Signed-off-by: Gaku Inami <gaku.inami.xw@bp.renesas.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig | 2 ++ >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig >>> index dbd954e..c32fa7c 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig >>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ config ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI >>> select NO_IOPORT_MAP >>> select PINCTRL >>> select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB >>> + select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ >>> + select ARCH_HAS_OPP >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/2/714 >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/356780/ > I believe this patch was queued up before those patches hit Linus's tree. > > In the case of ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ, a subsequent patch in > this pull-request, "ARM: shmobile: Remove ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ config for shmobile", > removes it. > > Inami-san, could you see about making a patch to remove ARCH_HAS_OPP too? Sorry for late reply. I posted this patch to linux-sh ML on May 29. At that time, I couldn't see a patch to remove ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ. However, I should have noticed this modification earlier.
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig index dbd954e..c32fa7c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/Kconfig @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ config ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI select NO_IOPORT_MAP select PINCTRL select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB + select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ + select ARCH_HAS_OPP if ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI