From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76035C433E1 for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45CFD2078D for ; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:43:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gerhold.net header.i=@gerhold.net header.b="tv1pHU3M" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726709AbgHXLnN (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:43:13 -0400 Received: from mo4-p02-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([85.215.255.83]:9933 "EHLO mo4-p02-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726306AbgHXLnI (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 07:43:08 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1598269386; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=gerhold.net; h=In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=L8FpAL/QNc5PlqFAg2tSEIydb3LWy4d4tNr31Xlb1hQ=; b=tv1pHU3MHv1Mrz4JHi/uE2Uv2FBEHTAoFa5fgL9RD9aoZb0srjDvyE4mGws8oI5z97 Uy6sGLFNjNgAseyLCKQ0TIjYDfvv9qSPY631y0J1WKwetGFjqtgVc6hh/F+CmAA9wSv3 DLYIgvd4FjvxLOJsm228zPBMp0/7Imop2muOxVYZurbmeDprMsaqYsaGYbUCYfR+7eOj rGc/TgyyuXWybVITNWrk+HUI4S5JBoBUY+hW1XGd75Ac6r2lQ16P6EQpITtO0nstIeEQ 6+USbti05nUucoxo4xqoZMSigOf5CWMVcY6X2LvWcoROpABTHi9B0QXQBePStKJvwZwI mkUw== X-RZG-AUTH: ":P3gBZUipdd93FF5ZZvYFPugejmSTVR2nRPhVOQ/OcYgojyw4j34+u26zEodhPgRDZ8j7Ic/MbIo=" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from gerhold.net by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 46.10.7 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id g0b6c1w7OBh4WqW (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:43:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 13:42:54 +0200 From: Stephan Gerhold To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , Ulf Hansson , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Niklas Cassel Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] opp: Set required OPPs in reverse order when scaling down Message-ID: <20200824114254.GA208090@gerhold.net> References: <20200730080146.25185-1-stephan@gerhold.net> <20200730080146.25185-3-stephan@gerhold.net> <20200821163152.GA3422@gerhold.net> <20200824113027.lzh6fp4bottjl6cc@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200824113027.lzh6fp4bottjl6cc@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 05:00:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21-08-20, 18:31, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > This patch does not apply anymore after the cleanup you pushed to > > opp/linux-next. I would be happy to send a v2 with that fixed. > > > > On my other OPP patch set you mentioned that you might apply these > > directly with some of your own changes - would you also prefer to do it > > yourself in this case or should I send a v2? > > I will pick the first 2 myself, that's fine. Lets see where we go with > the third one :) > OK, please ignore my question in my reply to PATCH 1/3 then. I replied before I read this one. Just add back the NULL checks and it should be fine :) > > Still looking for your feedback on both patch sets by the way! :) > > Sorry about the delay, I was on vacation for over a week in between and > this and the other patchset was a bit tricky (which you may have not > realized, not sure, as I wondered if something will not work within > the OPP core for v1 binding, but it did finally I believe) :) > No problem! I guess I did indeed not realize potential problems for the v1 bindings, all this compatibility code is quite confusing. :) Thanks! Stephan