Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932766Ab3HGRtM (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:49:12 -0400 Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.219.54]:41498 "EHLO mail-oa0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932144Ab3HGRtK (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:49:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <520287EA.5060508@wwwdotorg.org> References: <6610c86618b781b00eba446ca19035e077d99691.1375886595.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <520287EA.5060508@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:19:09 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: Tegra: start using cpufreq-cpu0 driver From: Viresh Kumar To: Stephen Warren Cc: rjw@sisk.pl, swarren@nvidia.com, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, patches@linaro.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1595 Lines: 40 On 7 August 2013 23:16, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 08/07/2013 08:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> cpufreq-cpu0 driver can be probed over DT only if a corresponding device node is >> created for the SoC which wants to use it. Lets create a platform device for >> cpufreq-cpu0 driver for Tegra. >> >> Also it removes the Kconfig entry responsible to compiling tegra-cpufreq driver >> and hence there will not be any conflicts between two cpufreq drivers. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c > >> static void __init tegra_dt_init(void) >> { >> + struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "cpufreq-cpu0", }; > > static? const? static: yes const: no, as it might be modified by platform_device_register_full() >> struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr; >> struct soc_device *soc_dev; >> struct device *parent = NULL; >> >> tegra_clocks_apply_init_table(); >> + platform_device_register_full(&devinfo); > > This seems awfully like going back to board files. Shouldn't something > that binds to the CPU nodes register the cpufreq device automatically, > based on the CPU's compatible value? This link has got some information why we can't have a node for cpufreq or a compatibility value.. http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/9018 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/