On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 15:01 -0600, Li Yang wrote:

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 12:14 -0600, Li Yang wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock
interface
itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to
find a
phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and
assuming
that
those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock.

This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on
the
clock
driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device
-tree
description of the mux options.

We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux
only
exposes
options that are valid.  The cpufreq driver was currently
being
overly
conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq =
get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum
A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed
depends on
the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar
limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency
mask
mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock
indices
that
are no longer valid.

Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <redacted>
---
v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and
changes
to clk api usage

 drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++-----------
----
------
-------
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)

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

I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set?

As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can
apply
these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM
trees,
each of which will have patches that depend on it.

OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from
Viresh.

Hi Scott,

Did you drop this patch later?  I can not find it in 4.5-rc still.

I was asked to get an ack from Russell King patch 4/5, which this patch
requires.  Despite repeated pings, I could not get a reply from Russell
King.

This patch?   I think you should try to get ACK from clock maintainers
instead of Russell.

A clock maintainer was who asked me to get an ACK from Russell.

-Scott