Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: Tegra: start using cpufreq-cpu0 driver

[Viresh Kumar]

On 7 August 2013 23:23, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That link only describes why we shouldn't have a dedicated compatible
> value for cpufreq. I certainly agree with that. However, I think it's
> reasonable that whatever code binds to:
>
>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
>
> ... should instantiate any virtual devices that relate to the CPU.

But how would we know here if platform really wants us to probe
cpufreq-cpu0 driver? On multiplatform kernel there can be multiple
cpufreq drivers available and there has to be some sort of code
in DT or platform code that reflects which driver we want to use.

We never required a device node for cpufreq, platform device was
added just to solve this issue.

> Doing so would be similar to how the Tegra I2S driver instantiates the
> internal struct device that ASoC needs for the PCM/DMA device, rather
> than having board-dt-tegra20.c do it, like it would have done in
> board-file days.

I haven't gone through it yet though :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/