From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932353AbcFGJXM (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:23:12 -0400 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:49142 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932093AbcFGJXJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jun 2016 05:23:09 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: twl6040: Handle mclk used for HPPLL and optional internal clock source To: Lee Jones References: <1462965209-6955-1-git-send-email-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20160516150231.GA5527@rob-hp-laptop> <7d5e3117-a014-0107-bf75-775401834e02@ti.com> <20160607091739.GD18047@dell> CC: Rob Herring , , , , From: Peter Ujfalusi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:23:02 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160607091739.GD18047@dell> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/07/16 12:17, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> Lee, >> >> On 05/16/16 18:02, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:13:29PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >>>> On some boards, like omap5-uevm the MCLK is gated by default and in order >>>> to be able to use the High performance modes of twl6040 it need to be >>>> enabled by SW. >>>> Add support for handling the MCLK source clock via CCF. >>>> At the same time lover the print priority of the notification that the 32K >>>> clock is not proveded so it is not going to be handled by the driver. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/twl6040.txt | 4 +-- >>> >>> Acked-by: Rob Herring >> >> Can you take a look at this patch if it is OK to pick? > > Yes, when I get around to it. > > I currently have 75 patch review to conduct in my inbox. Some of them > are quite large and complex. They will be seen to in the order they > were sent, and you just bumped this patch to "sent today". ;) I'm sorry for this. I did not intended to interfere with your workflow. I will be more patient next time, it is hard to know if I should bump the thread or resend or wait. Sorry again, Péter