Hi Heiko,

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 05:48:24PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote:

Am Donnerstag, 1. Dezember 2016, 18:27:32 CET schrieb Brian Norris:

quoted

We need to add regulators to the CPU nodes, so cpufreq doesn't think it
can crank up the clock speed without changing the voltage. However, we
don't yet have the DT bindings to fully describe the Over Voltage
Protection (OVP) circuits on these boards. Without that description, we
might end up changing the voltage too much, too fast.

Add the pwm-regulator descriptions and associate the CPU OPPs, but leave
them disabled.

Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>

is there a specific reason for keeping this change separate?

Maybe not a great one. I figured they were somewhat controversial, so I
at least wanted to split the "cpufreq patches" (i.e., this and the
previous) from the main DTS(I) additions. I also figured we typically
like to keep the base SoC changes separate from the board DTS(I)
changes.

While it is nice for documentation reasons, as it stands now the previous 
patch introduces a regression (cpufreq trying to scale without regulators) and 
immediately fixes it here.

Right. Additionally, as noted on the previous patch, we might do the
same with EVB. But I don't know what the regulators are like for EVB.
This is probably a bigger deal, since EVB has been working (allegedly)
upstream for a while now.

There's no way to split these up without either breaking compilation or
breaking bisectability. For Kevin/Gru, they don't function at all before
this series, so I figured some "settle" time wasn't a huge deal.

So if you're ok with it, I'd like to merge this one back into the previous 
patch when applying.

That'd be OK with me, as long as we're also confident about EVB.

Maybe at a minimum, I should just patch in some empty regulator nodes,
so cpufreq doesn't think there's no need to handle voltage.

Brian