From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:39:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: topology: Use a clock if possible to get the CPU frequency In-Reply-To: References: <20140630124919.GC28647@lukather> <20140630140146.GD28647@lukather> <20140630145847.GE28647@lukather> <20140703071016.GB31996@lukather> <20140704080255.GO31996@lukather> Message-ID: <20140708073940.GH13423@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 11:22:33AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > >> I still think that using the current rate with clk_get_rate is not a > >> good solution. > > > > Well, it's just as good as using clock-frequency, really. If you want > > the CPU max frequency, it's not the right property (plus, since the > > changed behaviour is not documented in Linux anywhere, the only > > reference we have is the ePAPR on this). > > > >> Could you give us more details about why you nee to use current clock ? > > > > Honestly, I just want to remove that big warning at boot on the > > A7-based SoCs we have :) > > so Why not changing the log message ? It's clearly not an error to not > have clock-frequency Because the next SoCs we're going to support will be HMP, so we're only delaying the issue by a few month if we're doing so. It doesn't fix the underlying issue where you're using a standard property for a (slightly) different usage. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: