From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: Tegra: start using cpufreq-cpu0 driver Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:46:18 -0600 Message-ID: <520287EA.5060508@wwwdotorg.org> References: <6610c86618b781b00eba446ca19035e077d99691.1375886595.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6610c86618b781b00eba446ca19035e077d99691.1375886595.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Viresh Kumar 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 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? > 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?