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 12:51:34 -0600 Message-ID: <52029736.8040007@wwwdotorg.org> References: <6610c86618b781b00eba446ca19035e077d99691.1375886595.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <520287EA.5060508@wwwdotorg.org> <5202898A.6050006@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-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 11:59 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 7 August 2013 23:23, Stephen Warren wrote: >> That link only describes why we shouldn't have a dedicated compatible >> value for cpufreq. I certainly agree with that. However, I think it's >> reasonable that whatever code binds to: >> >> compatible = "arm,cortex-a9"; >> >> ... should instantiate any virtual devices that relate to the CPU. > > But how would we know here if platform really wants us to probe > cpufreq-cpu0 driver? On multiplatform kernel there can be multiple > cpufreq drivers available and there has to be some sort of code > in DT or platform code that reflects which driver we want to use. Presumably the code would look at the top-level DT node's compatible value (e.g. "nvidia,tegra20").