Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-93345-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 10:54:36 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>,
	Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
	Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]  scmi-cpufreq: Set transition_delay_us
Message-ID: <20240306052436.rt5uqkakrgfcleew@vireshk-i7>
References: <20240222135702.2005635-1-pierre.gondois@arm.com>
 <20240304070058.kfqg3ypssn5x6k7s@vireshk-i7>
 <ZeWzs_g6FvQlHQN7@bogus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZeWzs_g6FvQlHQN7@bogus>

On 04-03-24, 11:42, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:30:58PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 22-02-24, 14:56, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> > > policy's fields definitions:
> > > `transition_delay_us`:
> > > The minimum amount of time between two consecutive freq. requests
> > > for one policy.
> > > `transition_latency`:
> > > Delta between freq. change request and effective freq. change on
> > > the hardware.
> > >
> > > cpufreq_policy_transition_delay_us() uses the `transition_delay_us`
> > > value if available. Otherwise a value is induced from the policy's
> > > `transition_latency`.
> > >
> > > The scmi-cpufreq driver doesn't populate the `transition_delay_us`.
> > > Values matching the definition are available through the SCMI
> > > specification.
> > > Add support to fetch these values and use them in the scmi-cpufreq
> > > driver.
> >
> > How do we merge this series ? I can only pick the last commit.
> 
> I have sent my PR for v6.9 already and was deferring this to v6.10
> The changes look good to me. If it doesn't conflict much with -next
> SCMI content, then I am happy to ack and you can take all of them
> together. Otherwise we can revisit strategy at -rc1. Thoughts ?

Applied. Thanks.

-- 
viresh