From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: l.majewski@samsung.com (Lukasz Majewski) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 14:49:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 7/7] cpufreq: exynos: remove all exynos specific cpufreq driver support In-Reply-To: References: <1390047057-2239-1-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <1390047057-2239-8-git-send-email-thomas.ab@samsung.com> <20140120090815.39e8c21a@amdc2363> <20140205124459.61c7da0e@amdc2363> Message-ID: <20140205144953.15acfd09@amdc2363> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Nishanth, > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Thomas Abraham > wrote: > > Okay, thanks. Initially it looked like adding boost frequencies into > > operating-modes would convolute it but I guess I was wrong. So I > > will add support for looking up "boost-frequencies" property in > > dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table function and mark the frequencies > > listed in this binding as CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ. > I wonder if it is high time that we pop the cpufreq stuff out of opp.c > other frameworks such as devfreq might choose to do things > differently. In my opinion, conceptually cpufreq's voltage and freq handling code fits perfectly to OPP framework. Yes. We can think about excluding cpufreq related code to e.g. opp-cpufreq.c (and probably opp-devfreq.c if needed in the future). > Regards, > Nishanth Menon > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group