From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: f.fainelli@gmail.com (Florian Fainelli) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 09:50:16 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: prefer SCMI cpufreq if supported In-Reply-To: <20180420093548.GA2989@vireshk-i7> References: <20180418155643.36464-1-code@mmayer.net> <20180418155643.36464-3-code@mmayer.net> <20180419041632.GF24576@vireshk-i7> <74b70865-dfa9-25c8-20f8-3d2f722b9b2d@arm.com> <20180420044259.GA2873@vireshk-i7> <20180420093548.GA2989@vireshk-i7> Message-ID: <52044000-513b-b5a1-27db-fb7fdb5ee04f@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/20/2018 02:35 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20-04-18, 10:15, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> It still doesn't give the flexibility to switch between the two >> implementations boot time based on some firmware config(e.g. DT status >> property). > > I agree, but it didn't look like they need flexibility :) > > Lets see how the intend to use it. If they are *always* going to use SCPI if > that is available, then it should be solved at Kconfig level only. Else they > shouldn't put such code in the driver to quit early. We have both drivers (brcmstb-avs-cpufreq and scmi-cpufreq) enabled in our kernel configuration, however, depending on the firmware version, we may have a number of combinations: - arm,scmi DT node is present and enabled (status = okay) as well as brcmstb-avs-cpufreq being present and enabled - arm,scmi DT node is present but disabled (status = disabled) and brcmstb-avs-cpufreq is being present and enabled If you think this is a self inflicted, downstream and backwards/forwards compatible relevant only change, I suppose we are fine with that too. -- Florian