Hi,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 10:50 PM, Vivek Gautam
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> From: Yaniv Gardi
>>>
>>> Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk
>>> are no longer exist, we should
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> From: Yaniv Gardi
>>
>> Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk
>> are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization
>> fail, but rather just report with
On 10/18/2016 07:28 AM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> From: Yaniv Gardi
>
> Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk
> are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization
> fail, but rather just report with debug message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi
> Signed-off-by: Vi
On 2016-10-18 07:28, Vivek Gautam wrote:
From: Yaniv Gardi
Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk
are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization
fail, but rather just report with debug message.
You may also want to update the device tree binding (docume
From: Yaniv Gardi
Since in future UFS Phy's the tx_iface_clk and rx_iface_clk
are no longer exist, we should not fail when their initialization
fail, but rather just report with debug message.
Signed-off-by: Yaniv Gardi
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam
---
No change since v1.
drivers/phy/phy-qco
5 matches
Mail list logo
