On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:50:50 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:03:51 PM Leonard Crestez wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 10:04 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 22-03-17, 18:53, Leonard Crestez wrote:

quoted

If the cpufreq driver tries to modify voltage/freq during suspend/resume
it might need to control an external PMIC via I2C or SPI but those
devices might be already suspended.

To avoid this scenario we just increase cpufreq to highest setpoint
before suspend. This issue can easily be triggered by ldo-bypass but in
theory any regulator set_voltage call can end up having to modify
external supply voltages.

Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <redacted>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

The first couple of patches are obvious fixes despite being marked as
RFC. It would be great if you could apply them to your tree separately

Why?

quoted

from the rest of the series but I'm not sure what the process is here.

Well, you have to talk to me.

OK, so if I understand this correctly, you would like the patches ACKed by
Viresh to be applied regardless of what happens to the rest of the series,
right?

In that case please resend them separately without the [RFC] tag and with
the ACKs from Viresh.

Thanks,
Rafael