ChanServ changed the topic of #linux-msm to:
<elder___> bamse: do you have a new preferred e-mail address for patches (not bjorn.andersson@linaro.org)
<elder___> I guess I'll use andersson@kernel.org
cxl000_ has quit [Quit: Leaving]
marvin24 has joined #linux-msm
marvin24_ has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
marvin24_ has joined #linux-msm
marvin24 has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
<steev> elder___: that's the one he sent to the list
cxl000 has joined #linux-msm
jhovold has joined #linux-msm
<ichernev[m]> Hey, I'm having a weird issue with dt schema adherence. So I'm getting a bunch of these errors when using `pinctrl-0 = <&...>;`, but NOT when definiting the pinctrl itself:... (full message at https://matrix.org/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/CVpJjaQZfxRtQSEEKxBaQhfx)
<aka_[m]> Do anyone have idea how bad is running SDHCI block at 200Mhz instead of 202Mhz.
<aka_[m]> Bengal driver only define 200Mhz and downstream 4.19 got 202Mhz clock here and i wonder if i should add it
pevik_ has joined #linux-msm
<Daanct12> can anyone here that have the following soc test if their clock driver fails to probe?
<Daanct12> SM6115, SM6125, SM6350
<Daanct12> this must be done in a setup where no other clock drivers are enabled
<Daanct12> or, CONFIG_QCOM_GDSC=n
<Daanct12> *sigh* irc stops pingging again
Daanct12 has quit []
Daanct12 has joined #linux-msm
Daanct12 is now known as Danct12
<Danct12> the driver should fail to probe with -38
jhovold has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
pevik_ has quit [Ping timeout: 480 seconds]
<Mis012[m]> aka_: isn't 200MHz the correct value from the sdhci spec?