Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 17 Nov 2022 16:54:03 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        andersson@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, johan@kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/4] qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add CPU clock provider support
Message-ID: <20221117112403.haffuclwooudvgwz@vireshk-i7>
References: <20221117053145.10409-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20221117101903.sw3hxaruj5sfhybw@bogus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221117101903.sw3hxaruj5sfhybw@bogus>
Precedence: bulk

On 17-11-22, 10:19, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Why do you need the above 3 changes if the below(4/4) will ensure
> cpufreq_get(cpu) returns the clock frequency. I was expecting to drop the
> whole "confusing" clock bindings and the unnecessary clock provider.
> 
> Can't we just use cpufreq_get(cpu) ?

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1657695140.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org/

The basic idea (need) here was to fix the DT and let the CPU nodes have clock
related properties, which are missing currently.

The context can be seen in the above thread.

-- 
viresh