Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra20 cpufreq driver

[Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>]

On 12/20/2013 03:42 AM, bilhuang wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 06:33 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 20 December 2013 15:55, bilhuang <bilhuang@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>> Don't you think it worth creating a file here so this can be shared to
>>> arm64?
>>
>> We will see how to handle virtual devices when we will start getting
>> arm64 SoCs. Probably we might end up writing a single file in cpufreq,
>> if required, that will create virtual devices for every arm64 platform..
>>
>> So, some people might use it and others wouldn't.. But no platform
>> specific files for such stuff. So, the best we can do for now is to move
>> these to platform code as we are talking about arm32 SoC's for now
>> which do have a mach-* directory..
>>
> OK thanks, this is suggested by Stephen earlier, I'll let him comment in
> case he might think otherwise.

No, I definitely don't agree here. The rules for arch/arm64 are: no
platform-specific code. We should immediately start planning for that.
If this means renaming the file that creates the virtual device from
tegra-cpufreq.c to something else, so be it, but we shouldn't go
backwards and push stuff into the arch directories.