From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:50:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq for freescale mx51 In-Reply-To: <20101007074044.GG2457@matterhorn.lan> References: <1285738417-1638-1-git-send-email-yong.shen@linaro.org> <20100930104817.GC2526@matterhorn.lan> <20101006095111.GV28242@pengutronix.de> <20101007074044.GG2457@matterhorn.lan> Message-ID: <20101007075012.GA28242@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 10:40:44AM +0300, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On 10 Oct 07, Yong Shen wrote: > > > > > > +static struct cpufreq_frequency_table imx_freq_table[4]; > > > > > > Three frequencies should be enough for everyone, right? This should be > > > dynamically allocated like in other cpufreq drivers. > > > > > > > Yes, we only support 3 work points, which is for sure. Actually, we only > > support 2 points on most mx51 chips. I supposed it is ok to use static array > > here. > > This can become a common cpufreq driver for all i.MX platforms. We don't know > how many work points will be supported in future versions of the silicon. > That is why a static array is not ok. > > I think Sascha was being ironic when he said "Three frequencies should be > enough for everyone, right?" :) Yes, the old 640k-is-enough-for-anyone joke. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |