| Message ID | 20240228-ipq5321-sku-support-v1-3-14e4d4715f4b@quicinc.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On 04-03-24, 12:42, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 28-02-24, 20:21, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: > > Like all other SoCs in IPQ5332 family, cpufreq for IPQ5321 is also > > determined by the eFuse, with the maximum limit of 1.1GHz. Add support > > for the same. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <quic_kathirav@quicinc.com> > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > index ea05d9d67490..0a46b5d49d32 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_kryo_name_version(struct device *cpu_dev, > > case QCOM_ID_IPQ5312: > > case QCOM_ID_IPQ5302: > > case QCOM_ID_IPQ5300: > > + case QCOM_ID_IPQ5321: > > case QCOM_ID_IPQ9514: > > case QCOM_ID_IPQ9550: > > case QCOM_ID_IPQ9554: > > Applied. Thanks. Dropped since the previous commit it required too. Can we get the necessary acks for me to pick those ?
On 3/5/2024 10:05 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 04-03-24, 12:42, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 28-02-24, 20:21, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: >>> Like all other SoCs in IPQ5332 family, cpufreq for IPQ5321 is also >>> determined by the eFuse, with the maximum limit of 1.1GHz. Add support >>> for the same. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <quic_kathirav@quicinc.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c >>> index ea05d9d67490..0a46b5d49d32 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c >>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c >>> @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_kryo_name_version(struct device *cpu_dev, >>> case QCOM_ID_IPQ5312: >>> case QCOM_ID_IPQ5302: >>> case QCOM_ID_IPQ5300: >>> + case QCOM_ID_IPQ5321: >>> case QCOM_ID_IPQ9514: >>> case QCOM_ID_IPQ9550: >>> case QCOM_ID_IPQ9554: >> >> Applied. Thanks. > > Dropped since the previous commit it required too. Can we get the > necessary acks for me to pick those ? > Sorry for not mentioning the dependencies. patch 1/3 and 2/3 are already has the R-b and A-b tags. But typically those patches will go via qcom tree. Do you want to pick it via your tree? Sorry, I'm not sure on this... Thanks, Kathiravan T.
Bjorn, On 06-03-24, 10:10, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: > patch 1/3 and 2/3 are already has the R-b and A-b tags. But typically those > patches will go via qcom tree. Do you want to pick it via your tree? Sorry, > I'm not sure on this... Should I pick all the patches ?
On 06-03-24, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Bjorn, > > On 06-03-24, 10:10, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: > > patch 1/3 and 2/3 are already has the R-b and A-b tags. But typically those > > patches will go via qcom tree. Do you want to pick it via your tree? Sorry, > > I'm not sure on this... > > Should I pick all the patches ? Okay, there are conflicts for the first patch itself. Bjorn you can apply all the patches. For this patch: Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On 06/03/2024 05:40, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: >>> >>> Applied. Thanks. >> >> Dropped since the previous commit it required too. Can we get the >> necessary acks for me to pick those ? >> > > Sorry for not mentioning the dependencies. > > patch 1/3 and 2/3 are already has the R-b and A-b tags. But typically
On 3/6/2024 12:52 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 06/03/2024 05:40, Kathiravan Thirumoorthy wrote: >>>> >>>> Applied. Thanks. >>> >>> Dropped since the previous commit it required too. Can we get the >>> necessary acks for me to pick those ? >>> >> >> Sorry for not mentioning the dependencies. >> >> patch 1/3 and 2/3 are already has the R-b and A-b tags. But typically > > From whom? Not from Qualcomm SoC maintainers. Does the "necessary acks" refers for to the acks from Qualcomm SoC maintainers? Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. That's why I mentioned "Sorry, I'm not sure on this..." couple of lines below. > >> those patches will go via qcom tree. Do you want to pick it via your >> tree? Sorry, I'm not sure on this... > > Your cover letter or patch changelog should clearly document > dependencies, so maintainers could understand what to do with this patch. Understood. Will take care in future. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c index ea05d9d67490..0a46b5d49d32 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c @@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_kryo_name_version(struct device *cpu_dev, case QCOM_ID_IPQ5312: case QCOM_ID_IPQ5302: case QCOM_ID_IPQ5300: + case QCOM_ID_IPQ5321: case QCOM_ID_IPQ9514: case QCOM_ID_IPQ9550: case QCOM_ID_IPQ9554:
Like all other SoCs in IPQ5332 family, cpufreq for IPQ5321 is also determined by the eFuse, with the maximum limit of 1.1GHz. Add support for the same. Signed-off-by: Kathiravan Thirumoorthy <quic_kathirav@quicinc.com> --- drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-nvmem.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)