On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:18:48PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 02:15:36PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Uh, no. Think about this for a minute - we want bug fixes backporting,
> > we don't want to be putting process blockers in the way of that
> > especially not in the
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 02:15:36PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 04:57:38PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:15:20PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
> > > backport won't work on
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 04:57:38PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:15:20PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
> > backport won't work on some kernels.
> that's not what Greg says, but fair enough. Won't discuss
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 04:57:38PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:15:20PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
backport won't work on some kernels.
that's not what Greg says, but fair enough. Won't discuss it...
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 02:15:36PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 04:57:38PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:15:20PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
backport won't work on some
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:18:48PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 02:15:36PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
Uh, no. Think about this for a minute - we want bug fixes backporting,
we don't want to be putting process blockers in the way of that
especially not in the cases
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:15:20PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:40:30PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> > No no, I mean that before you SoB you should have a:
>
> > Cc: # v3.x v3.y ...
>
> It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
> Tested-by: Robert Nelson
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:40:30PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> No no, I mean that before you SoB you should have a:
> Cc: # v3.x v3.y ...
It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
backport won't work on some kernels.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:40:30PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
No no, I mean that before you SoB you should have a:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v3.x v3.y ...
It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that the
backport won't work on some kernels.
signature.asc
Description:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
Tested-by: Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:15:20PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:40:30PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
No no, I mean that before you SoB you should have a:
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v3.x v3.y ...
It's perfectly OK to omit this unless there's an awareness that
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:39:43PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:47:15AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
> > > Tested-by: Robert Nelson
> >
> > please read
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:47:15AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
> > Tested-by: Robert Nelson
>
> please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, you'll see this is
> wrong.
you mean that i should
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:47:15AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
Tested-by: Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com
please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, you'll see
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:39:43PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:47:15AM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
Tested-by: Robert Nelson
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
> Tested-by: Robert Nelson
please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, you'll see this is
wrong.
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
Tested-by: Robert Nelson
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index e872c8b..c347fd0 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:15:33AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:45:52PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> > And after a second look it's clear what's going on:
>
> After a second look at what? You've not provided any context, I've no
> idea what you're talking about here.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:15:33AM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:45:52PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
And after a second look it's clear what's going on:
After a second look at what? You've not provided any context, I've no
idea what you're talking about here.
forgot
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
Tested-by: Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index e872c8b..c347fd0
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 10:13:00AM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
Tested-by: Robert Nelson robertcnel...@gmail.com
please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt, you'll see this is
wrong.
--
balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:45:52PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> And after a second look it's clear what's going on:
After a second look at what? You've not provided any context, I've no
idea what you're talking about here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Seems to me, naïvely, that in the above code, regulator->min_uV and
> regulator->max_uV should be set only after _regulator_do_set_voltage()
> succeeds?
Eh, never mind. Looks like you took a similar strategy in the subsequent
patch you sent..
-
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Paolo Pisati wrote:
> but inside regulator_set_voltage(), we save the new regulator voltage before
> actually ramping up:
>
> core.c::regulator_set_voltage():
> ...
> regulator->min_uV = min_uV;
> regulator->max_uV = max_uV;
>
> ret =
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:13:35PM -0600, Robert Nelson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Paolo Pisati
> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
> > ---
> > drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Paolo Pisati
wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
> ---
> drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
> index e872c8b..c347fd0 100644
>
And after a second look it's clear what's going on:
[...]
[5.575744] cpu cpu0: cpufreq-omap: 300 MHz, -1 mV --> 800 MHz, 1325 mV
[5.582946] voltdm_scale: No voltage scale API registered for vdd_mpu_iva
[5.590332] cpu cpu0: omap_target: unable to scale voltage up.
[1]
[5.596649]
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index e872c8b..c347fd0 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index e872c8b..c347fd0 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++
And after a second look it's clear what's going on:
[...]
[5.575744] cpu cpu0: cpufreq-omap: 300 MHz, -1 mV -- 800 MHz, 1325 mV
[5.582946] voltdm_scale: No voltage scale API registered for vdd_mpu_iva
[5.590332] cpu cpu0: omap_target: unable to scale voltage up.
[1]
[5.596649]
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Paolo Pisati
paolo.pis...@canonical.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:13:35PM -0600, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Paolo Pisati
paolo.pis...@canonical.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati paolo.pis...@canonical.com
---
drivers/regulator/core.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Paolo Pisati wrote:
but inside regulator_set_voltage(), we save the new regulator voltage before
actually ramping up:
core.c::regulator_set_voltage():
...
regulator-min_uV = min_uV;
regulator-max_uV = max_uV;
ret = regulator_check_consumers(rdev,
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Seems to me, naïvely, that in the above code, regulator-min_uV and
regulator-max_uV should be set only after _regulator_do_set_voltage()
succeeds?
Eh, never mind. Looks like you took a similar strategy in the subsequent
patch you sent..
- Paul
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:45:52PM +0100, Paolo Pisati wrote:
And after a second look it's clear what's going on:
After a second look at what? You've not provided any context, I've no
idea what you're talking about here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
36 matches
Mail list logo
