From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754523AbcFPN00 (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:26:26 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:43726 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753861AbcFPN0Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:26:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support To: "Jon Medhurst (Tixy)" References: <1466073481-697-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1466082894.20208.1.camel@linaro.org> Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Mathieu Poirier , Suzuki K Poulose From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <5762A8FD.7070807@arm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:26:21 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1466082894.20208.1.camel@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/06/16 14:14, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote: > On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 11:37 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> This series add support for SCPI based device device power state >> management using genpd. >> >> Regards, >> Sudeep >> >> v1[1]->v2: >> - Fixed the endianness handling in scpi_device_get_power_state >> as spotted by Tixy >> - Renamed scpi_pd.c to scpi_pm_domain.c as suggested by Ulf > > You seemed to also have made some changes to the contents of the file, > is that deliberate? This is the diff... > name array was accidental. I added it as I was not sure if I want to make it dynamic, just found I might be hitting the max while testing and added it. The other change was something that I found recently after I tried to get rid of juno coresight primecell override after I realized AMBA framework should be able to cope up with power domains. I will reply on that thread. Sorry for missing out this in changelog. I assume in my previous testings only the paths that ignored the return were executed. -- Regards, Sudeep