On Friday, May 30, 2014 11:37:58 PM Thomas Abraham wrote:

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Friday, May 30, 2014 02:19:06 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Friday, May 30, 2014 02:31:15 PM Thomas Abraham wrote:

quoted

Changes since v5:
- Fixes for checkpatch warnings with --strict option as suggested by
  Nishanth Menon.

Changes since v4:
- Code improvements suggested by Viresh Kumar.

Changes since v3:
- Minor changes as suggested in the last version.

Changes since v2:
- Reworked based on the "PM / OPP: move cpufreq specific helpers out of OPP
  layer" patch series posted by Nishanth Menon.

Changes since v1:
- Boost mode frequencies are specfied as a set of frequencies instead of
  specifying them as OPPs. Thanks to Nishanth, Lukasz and Rob for the
  feedback.

This series has been acked by authors and maintainers of the code
portions changed in this series. The new DT binding introduced in this
patch needs an ack from device tree binding maintainers as well.

Commit 6f19efc0 ("cpufreq: Add boost frequency support in core") adds
support for CPU boost mode for CPUfreq drivers. To use the new boost
mode, CPUfreq drivers have to specify the boost mode frequency and
voltage within the CPUfreq driver, which is the case for Exynos4x12
CPUfreq driver.

But for CPUfreq drivers which obtain the OPPs from cpus node, this
patch series adds support to specify boost mode frequencies in the
cpu device tree node. This requirement came up when Lukasz pointed
out the regression caused by the Exynos CPUfreq driver consolidation
patches.

Both patches queued up for 3.16 in the linux-pm tree.

But please address the Mark's comments or I'll drop them.

Hi Rafael,

Please drop this series for now. Both the patches have to reworked
based on Mark's comments.

OK, dropped.

Thanks!

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.