...@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove unused voltagedomain data for AM33xx
Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com writes:
cc Kevin, Vaibhav
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
The powerdomain framework today expects to always have a
voltagedomain
associated with a given powerdomain. We
; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org;
linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Remove unused voltagedomain data for AM33xx
Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com writes:
cc Kevin, Vaibhav
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
The powerdomain framework today expects to always have
On 02:46-20130614, Paul Walmsley wrote:
cc Kevin, Vaibhav
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
The powerdomain framework today expects to always have a voltagedomain
associated with a given powerdomain. We already have AM33xx which
has no Voltage Controller/Voltage Processor as
Paul Walmsley p...@pwsan.com writes:
cc Kevin, Vaibhav
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
The powerdomain framework today expects to always have a voltagedomain
associated with a given powerdomain. We already have AM33xx which
has no Voltage Controller/Voltage Processor as part of
Hi,
The powerdomain framework today expects to always have a voltagedomain
associated with a given powerdomain. We already have AM33xx which
has no Voltage Controller/Voltage Processor as part of PRCM.
There are more SoCs' to follow starting with AM437x and DRA7xx
which do not have VC/VP.
cc Kevin, Vaibhav
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
The powerdomain framework today expects to always have a voltagedomain
associated with a given powerdomain. We already have AM33xx which
has no Voltage Controller/Voltage Processor as part of PRCM.
There are more SoCs' to follow
