From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:42:59 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v2 0/9] cpufreq: Introduce support for ST's cpufreq functionality In-Reply-To: <20150708105958.GO3182@x1> References: <1435154348-28840-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150708105054.GB1805@linux> <20150708105958.GO3182@x1> Message-ID: <20150708111259.GC1805@linux> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08-07-15, 11:59, Lee Jones wrote: > No problem. So long as it's still on your radar. So, for the first 7 patches: Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar but for the last two: - I thought we agreed that you will have a look at opp-v2 bindings and create your new bindings as an extension of those ? As we support extending opp-v2 bindings per vendor basis. - And I don't really think you need to create a device for your STM driver, why not move your stm-cpufreq file to arch/arm/- and call it from .init_late, from where you call init_cpufreq() today. Your driver doesn't have anything related to cpufreq-core really and isn't required to stay in drivers/cpufreq, unless you want it that way. I haven't reviewed the driver yet and waiting for an answer to opp-v2 question I asked above. opp-v2 is created because we didn't wanted platforms to create new separate bindings for OPPs :) -- viresh