| Message ID | 20190909154502.19804-1-aford173@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] cpufreq: ti-cpufreq: Add support for AM3517 | expand |
Hi Adam, > Am 09.09.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>: > > The AM3517 only lists 600MHz @ 1.2V, but the revister values for a small typo... s/revister/register/ > 0x4830A204 = 1b86 802f, it seems like am3517 might be a derivative > of the omap36 which has OPPs would be OPP50 (300 MHz) and OPP100 > (600 MHz). > > This patch simply enable adds the am3517 to the compatible table > using the omap3630 structure instead of the 3430. > > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c > index f2f58d689320..6b69fb1d6bdf 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c > @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_setup_syscon_register(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data) > > static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "ti,am33xx", .data = &am3x_soc_data, }, > + { .compatible = "ti,am3517", .data = &omap36xx_soc_data, }, > { .compatible = "ti,am43", .data = &am4x_soc_data, }, > { .compatible = "ti,dra7", .data = &dra7_soc_data }, > { .compatible = "ti,omap34xx", .data = &omap34xx_soc_data, }, > -- > 2.17.1 > Looks good to me. Should I include your two patches to my patch set (and resend)? Or should we keep them separated? BR and thanks, Nikolaus
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:13 PM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > > Am 09.09.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>: > > > > The AM3517 only lists 600MHz @ 1.2V, but the revister values for > > a small typo... > > s/revister/register/ > > > 0x4830A204 = 1b86 802f, it seems like am3517 might be a derivative > > of the omap36 which has OPPs would be OPP50 (300 MHz) and OPP100 > > (600 MHz). > > > > This patch simply enable adds the am3517 to the compatible table > > using the omap3630 structure instead of the 3430. > > > > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c > > index f2f58d689320..6b69fb1d6bdf 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c > > @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_setup_syscon_register(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data) > > > > static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = { > > { .compatible = "ti,am33xx", .data = &am3x_soc_data, }, > > + { .compatible = "ti,am3517", .data = &omap36xx_soc_data, }, > > { .compatible = "ti,am43", .data = &am4x_soc_data, }, > > { .compatible = "ti,dra7", .data = &dra7_soc_data }, > > { .compatible = "ti,omap34xx", .data = &omap34xx_soc_data, }, > > -- > > 2.17.1 > > > > Looks good to me. > > Should I include your two patches to my patch set (and resend)? > Or should we keep them separated? Go ahead and take credit for them. I just did what you told me to do and tested them. Go ahead and mark it as Tested-by with my name. adam > > BR and thanks, > Nikolaus >
Hi, > Am 09.09.2019 um 20:17 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>: > > On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 1:13 PM H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Adam, >> >>> Am 09.09.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>: >>> >>> The AM3517 only lists 600MHz @ 1.2V, but the revister values for >> >> a small typo... >> >> s/revister/register/ >> >>> 0x4830A204 = 1b86 802f, it seems like am3517 might be a derivative >>> of the omap36 which has OPPs would be OPP50 (300 MHz) and OPP100 >>> (600 MHz). >>> >>> This patch simply enable adds the am3517 to the compatible table >>> using the omap3630 structure instead of the 3430. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com> >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c >>> index f2f58d689320..6b69fb1d6bdf 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c >>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c >>> @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_setup_syscon_register(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data) >>> >>> static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = { >>> { .compatible = "ti,am33xx", .data = &am3x_soc_data, }, >>> + { .compatible = "ti,am3517", .data = &omap36xx_soc_data, }, >>> { .compatible = "ti,am43", .data = &am4x_soc_data, }, >>> { .compatible = "ti,dra7", .data = &dra7_soc_data }, >>> { .compatible = "ti,omap34xx", .data = &omap34xx_soc_data, }, >>> -- >>> 2.17.1 >>> >> >> Looks good to me. >> >> Should I include your two patches to my patch set (and resend)? >> Or should we keep them separated? > > Go ahead and take credit for them. I just did what you told me to do > and tested them. Well, you are still the Author, the one who wrote down the ideas :) I think git will even keep the author name untouched. > Go ahead and mark it as Tested-by with my name. Best is to keep your Signed-Off + mine and add a tested-by as well :) BR and thanks, Nikolaus
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c index f2f58d689320..6b69fb1d6bdf 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ static int ti_cpufreq_setup_syscon_register(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data) static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = { { .compatible = "ti,am33xx", .data = &am3x_soc_data, }, + { .compatible = "ti,am3517", .data = &omap36xx_soc_data, }, { .compatible = "ti,am43", .data = &am4x_soc_data, }, { .compatible = "ti,dra7", .data = &dra7_soc_data }, { .compatible = "ti,omap34xx", .data = &omap34xx_soc_data, },
The AM3517 only lists 600MHz @ 1.2V, but the revister values for 0x4830A204 = 1b86 802f, it seems like am3517 might be a derivative of the omap36 which has OPPs would be OPP50 (300 MHz) and OPP100 (600 MHz). This patch simply enable adds the am3517 to the compatible table using the omap3630 structure instead of the 3430. Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>