[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: fixes for v3.12

[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: fixes for v3.12

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Hi Shawn, Guennadi,

These are the fixes for the issue reported by Guennadi.
cpu_dev should point to cpu0 device instead of cpufreq-cpu0 platform
devices. The dev_id is also updated while registering the cpu clocks.

Can you review these ? Tested-by is much appreciated as I don't
have hardware to check the fix.

Regards,
Sudeep

Sudeep KarkadaNagesha (4):
  cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device
  cpufreq: imx6q-cpufreq: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device
  ARM: i.MX: change dev_id to cpu0 while registering cpu clock
  ARM: shmobile: change dev_id to cpu0 while registering cpu clock

 arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx27.c          | 2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx51-imx53.c    | 2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c         | 9 +++++++--
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c | 2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c  | 2 +-
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c         | 7 ++++++-
 drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c        | 7 ++++++-
 7 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Commit f837a9b5ab05c52a07108c6f09ca66f2e0aee757 "cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0:
remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes" assumed the pdev->dev is set to
cpu0 device in the platform code. But it actually points to the virtual
cpufreq-cpu0 platform device which is not present in the device tree.
Most of the information needed by cpufreq is stored in cpu0 DT node.
So cpu_dev must point to cpu0 device.

This patch fixes the wrong assignment to cpu_dev.

Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
index cbfffa9..78c49d8 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
@@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
 #define pr_fmt(fmt)	KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
 
 #include <linux/clk.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
@@ -177,7 +178,11 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	struct device_node *np;
 	int ret;
 
-	cpu_dev = &pdev->dev;
+	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0);
+	if (!cpu_dev) {
+		pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n");
+		return -ENODEV;
+	}
 
 	np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
 	if (!np) {
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

Hi Sudeep

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:

> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
> 
> Commit f837a9b5ab05c52a07108c6f09ca66f2e0aee757 "cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0:
> remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes" assumed the pdev->dev is set to
> cpu0 device in the platform code. But it actually points to the virtual
> cpufreq-cpu0 platform device which is not present in the device tree.
> Most of the information needed by cpufreq is stored in cpu0 DT node.
> So cpu_dev must point to cpu0 device.
> 
> This patch fixes the wrong assignment to cpu_dev.
> 
> Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Thanks for your patches

> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.=
> c
> index cbfffa9..78c49d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #define pr_fmt(fmt)=09KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> =20

Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes 
have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm 
handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system 
isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and 
resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP 
side.

Thanks
Guennadi

>  #include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>  #include <linux/err.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -177,7 +178,11 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *=
> pdev)
>  =09struct device_node *np;
>  =09int ret;
> =20
> -=09cpu_dev =3D &pdev->dev;
> +=09cpu_dev =3D get_cpu_device(0);
> +=09if (!cpu_dev) {
> +=09=09pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n");
> +=09=09return -ENODEV;
> +=09}
> =20
>  =09np =3D of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
>  =09if (!np) {
> --=20
> 1.8.1.2
> 
> 

---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Viresh Kumar]

On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
> Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes
> have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm
> handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system
> isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and
> resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP
> side.

Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side..
Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these
patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know
why they aren't shouting :)

He mostly send pull requests to Rafael and so this wasn't a issue for
Rafael :)

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

On 11/09/13 09:42, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes
>> have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm
>> handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system
>> isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and
>> resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP
>> side.
> 
> Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side..
> Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these
> patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know
> why they aren't shouting :)
> 
> He mostly send pull requests to Rafael and so this wasn't a issue for
> Rafael :)
> 

Yes looks like its at my end. I will try to fix it. There is alternate
SMTP which should not have this issue, but it was down recently. I
forgot to switch back to it once it was fixed.

For now you can fetch it from:
	git://linux-arm.org/linux-skn.git cpufreq_fixes_v3.12

Regards,
Sudeep

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Shawn Guo]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:12:24PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes
> > have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm
> > handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system
> > isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and
> > resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP
> > side.
> 
> Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side..
> Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these
> patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know
> why they aren't shouting :)

I'm not sure what's going on here.  But I did apply the patches from
mail without any problem, and the patch I got look just like what the
archive below [1] shows.

Shawn

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg272474.html

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 02:12:24 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 September 2013 13:45, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Noone else seems to complain, but I don't think these =20, =09 etc. codes
> > have been invented on my side and I don't think they belong here. I'm
> > handling enough mails / patches daily to believe, that my mail system
> > isn't the cause of this. Could you please verify and regenerate and
> > resend? Unless I'm mistaken this looks like a corruption on your SMTP
> > side.
> 
> Its on Sudeep's side :) .. Or on ARM's side..
> Don't know why nobody else complained, Atleast people who test these
> patches (Like Shawn), must have applied them from mail.. Don't know
> why they aren't shouting :)

This looks like broken quoted-printable e-mail encoding somewhere (either
on the sending or on the receiving end).

> He mostly send pull requests to Rafael and so this wasn't a issue for
> Rafael :)

Git pulls are, well, from git, so e-mail encoding doesn't have anything to do
with them ...

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.

[PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:

> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
> 
> Commit f837a9b5ab05c52a07108c6f09ca66f2e0aee757 "cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0:
> remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes" assumed the pdev->dev is set to
> cpu0 device in the platform code. But it actually points to the virtual
> cpufreq-cpu0 platform device which is not present in the device tree.
> Most of the information needed by cpufreq is stored in cpu0 DT node.
> So cpu_dev must point to cpu0 device.
> 
> This patch fixes the wrong assignment to cpu_dev.
> 
> Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Tested-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski+renesas@gmail.com>

Thanks
Guennadi

> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.=
> c
> index cbfffa9..78c49d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #define pr_fmt(fmt)=09KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> =20
>  #include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
>  #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>  #include <linux/err.h>
>  #include <linux/module.h>
> @@ -177,7 +178,11 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *=
> pdev)
>  =09struct device_node *np;
>  =09int ret;
> =20
> -=09cpu_dev =3D &pdev->dev;
> +=09cpu_dev =3D get_cpu_device(0);
> +=09if (!cpu_dev) {
> +=09=09pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n");
> +=09=09return -ENODEV;
> +=09}
> =20
>  =09np =3D of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
>  =09if (!np) {
> --=20
> 1.8.1.2
> 
> 

---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/

[PATCH 2/4] cpufreq: imx6q-cpufreq: assign cpu_dev correctly to cpu0 device

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Commit cdc58d602d2e657602a90c190cbf745886c95977 "cpufreq: imx6q-cpufreq:
remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes" assumed the pdev->dev is set to
cpu0 device in the platform code. But it actually points to the virtual
cpufreq-cpu0 platform device which is not present in the device tree.
Most of the information needed by cpufreq is stored in cpu0 DT node.
So cpu_dev must point to cpu0 device.

This patch fixes the wrong assignment to cpu_dev.

Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c  | 9 +++++++--
 drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c | 7 ++++++-
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
index 85a1b51..90372a2 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
@@ -233,10 +233,15 @@ put_node:
 	of_node_put(np);
 }
 
-static void __init imx6q_opp_init(struct device *cpu_dev)
+static void __init imx6q_opp_init(void)
 {
 	struct device_node *np;
+	struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0);
 
+	if (!cpu_dev) {
+		pr_warn("failed to get cpu0 device\n");
+		return;
+	}
 	np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
 	if (!np) {
 		pr_warn("failed to find cpu0 node\n");
@@ -268,7 +273,7 @@ static void __init imx6q_init_late(void)
 		imx6q_cpuidle_init();
 
 	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_IMX6Q_CPUFREQ)) {
-		imx6q_opp_init(&imx6q_cpufreq_pdev.dev);
+		imx6q_opp_init();
 		platform_device_register(&imx6q_cpufreq_pdev);
 	}
 }
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c
index 3e39654..c3fd2a1 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/imx6q-cpufreq.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
  */
 
 #include <linux/clk.h>
+#include <linux/cpu.h>
 #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
@@ -202,7 +203,11 @@ static int imx6q_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	unsigned long min_volt, max_volt;
 	int num, ret;
 
-	cpu_dev = &pdev->dev;
+	cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0);
+	if (!cpu_dev) {
+		pr_err("failed to get cpu0 device\n");
+		return -ENODEV;
+	}
 
 	np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
 	if (!np) {
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 3/4] ARM: i.MX: change dev_id to cpu0 while registering cpu clock

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Currently all clkdev registration use "cpufreq-cpu0.0" as dev_id
for cpu clock which refers to virtual platform device. It needs to
be "cpu0" instead which is actual cpu0 device id.

This patch changes the dev_id from "cpufreq-cpu0.0" to "cpu0".

Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx27.c       | 2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx51-imx53.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx27.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx27.c
index c3cfa41..c6b40f3 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx27.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx27.c
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@ int __init mx27_clocks_init(unsigned long fref)
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[ata_ahb_gate], "ata", NULL);
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[rtc_ipg_gate], NULL, "imx21-rtc");
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[scc_ipg_gate], "scc", NULL);
-	clk_register_clkdev(clk[cpu_div], NULL, "cpufreq-cpu0.0");
+	clk_register_clkdev(clk[cpu_div], NULL, "cpu0");
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[emi_ahb_gate], "emi_ahb" , NULL);
 
 	mxc_timer_init(MX27_IO_ADDRESS(MX27_GPT1_BASE_ADDR), MX27_INT_GPT1);
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx51-imx53.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx51-imx53.c
index 1a56a33..de1964c 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx51-imx53.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx51-imx53.c
@@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static void __init mx5_clocks_common_init(unsigned long rate_ckil,
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[ssi2_ipg_gate], NULL, "imx-ssi.1");
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[ssi3_ipg_gate], NULL, "imx-ssi.2");
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[sdma_gate], NULL, "imx35-sdma");
-	clk_register_clkdev(clk[cpu_podf], NULL, "cpufreq-cpu0.0");
+	clk_register_clkdev(clk[cpu_podf], NULL, "cpu0");
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[iim_gate], "iim", NULL);
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[dummy], NULL, "imx2-wdt.0");
 	clk_register_clkdev(clk[dummy], NULL, "imx2-wdt.1");
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 4/4] ARM: shmobile: change dev_id to cpu0 while registering cpu clock

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Currently all clkdev registration use "cpufreq-cpu0.0" as dev_id
for cpu clock which refers to virtual platform device. It needs to
be "cpu0" instead which is actual cpu0 device id.

This patch changes the dev_id from "cpufreq-cpu0.0" to "cpu0".

Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Cc: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c | 2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c  | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c
index 8ea5ef6..5bd2e85 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c
@@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
 	CLKDEV_CON_ID("pll2h",			&pll2h_clk),
 
 	/* CPU clock */
-	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpufreq-cpu0",		&z_clk),
+	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpu0",			&z_clk),
 
 	/* DIV6 */
 	CLKDEV_CON_ID("zb",			&div6_clks[DIV6_ZB]),
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c
index 1942eae..c92c023 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
 	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("smp_twd", &twd_clk), /* smp_twd */
 
 	/* DIV4 clocks */
-	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpufreq-cpu0", &div4_clks[DIV4_Z]),
+	CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpu0", &div4_clks[DIV4_Z]),
 
 	/* DIV6 clocks */
 	CLKDEV_CON_ID("vck1_clk", &div6_clks[DIV6_VCK1]),
-- 
1.8.1.2

[PATCH 4/4] ARM: shmobile: change dev_id to cpu0 while registering cpu clock

[Guennadi Liakhovetski]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:

> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
> 
> Currently all clkdev registration use "cpufreq-cpu0.0" as dev_id
> for cpu clock which refers to virtual platform device. It needs to
> be "cpu0" instead which is actual cpu0 device id.
> 
> This patch changes the dev_id from "cpufreq-cpu0.0" to "cpu0".
> 
> Reported-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
> Cc: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>

Tested-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski+renesas@gmail.com>

Thanks
Guennadi

> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c | 2 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c  | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobil=
> e/clock-r8a73a4.c
> index 8ea5ef6..5bd2e85 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a73a4.c
> @@ -555,7 +555,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] =3D {
>  =09CLKDEV_CON_ID("pll2h",=09=09=09&pll2h_clk),
> =20
>  =09/* CPU clock */
> -=09CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpufreq-cpu0",=09=09&z_clk),
> +=09CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpu0",=09=09=09&z_clk),
> =20
>  =09/* DIV6 */
>  =09CLKDEV_CON_ID("zb",=09=09=09&div6_clks[DIV6_ZB]),
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile=
> /clock-sh73a0.c
> index 1942eae..c92c023 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-sh73a0.c
> @@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] =3D {
>  =09CLKDEV_DEV_ID("smp_twd", &twd_clk), /* smp_twd */
> =20
>  =09/* DIV4 clocks */
> -=09CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpufreq-cpu0", &div4_clks[DIV4_Z]),
> +=09CLKDEV_DEV_ID("cpu0", &div4_clks[DIV4_Z]),
> =20
>  =09/* DIV6 clocks */
>  =09CLKDEV_CON_ID("vck1_clk", &div6_clks[DIV6_VCK1]),
> --=20
> 1.8.1.2
> 
> 

---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/

[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: fixes for v3.12

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 06:59:45 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
> 
> Hi Shawn, Guennadi,

Hi,

Thanks for the fixes, ->

> These are the fixes for the issue reported by Guennadi.
> cpu_dev should point to cpu0 device instead of cpufreq-cpu0 platform
> devices. The dev_id is also updated while registering the cpu clocks.
> 
> Can you review these ? Tested-by is much appreciated as I don't
> have hardware to check the fix.

-> but I'll wait for ACKs and Tested-by replies before taking them.

Thanks,
Rafael

[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: fixes for v3.12

[Shawn Guo]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 06:59:45PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
> 
> Hi Shawn, Guennadi,
> 
> These are the fixes for the issue reported by Guennadi.
> cpu_dev should point to cpu0 device instead of cpufreq-cpu0 platform
> devices. The dev_id is also updated while registering the cpu clocks.
> 
> Can you review these ? Tested-by is much appreciated as I don't
> have hardware to check the fix.

For IMX,

Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>

[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: fixes for v3.12

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 06:59:45 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
> 
> Hi Shawn, Guennadi,
> 
> These are the fixes for the issue reported by Guennadi.
> cpu_dev should point to cpu0 device instead of cpufreq-cpu0 platform
> devices. The dev_id is also updated while registering the cpu clocks.
> 
> Can you review these ? Tested-by is much appreciated as I don't
> have hardware to check the fix.

I have a little problem with this series, because the last patch is based
on the current Linus' tree rather than on my master branch which is what
I have ready to push.  I don't think it makes sense to rebase it, however,
because that would introduce a merge conflict for Linus unnecessarily.

To avoid merging stuff back and forth, I'll push this series later in the
cycle.

Thanks,
Rafael

[PATCH 0/4] cpufreq: fixes for v3.12

[Sudeep KarkadaNagesha]

On 11/09/13 23:58, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 06:59:45 PM Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
>>
>> Hi Shawn, Guennadi,
>>
>> These are the fixes for the issue reported by Guennadi.
>> cpu_dev should point to cpu0 device instead of cpufreq-cpu0 platform
>> devices. The dev_id is also updated while registering the cpu clocks.
>>
>> Can you review these ? Tested-by is much appreciated as I don't
>> have hardware to check the fix.
> 
> I have a little problem with this series, because the last patch is based
> on the current Linus' tree rather than on my master branch which is what
> I have ready to push.  I don't think it makes sense to rebase it, however,
> because that would introduce a merge conflict for Linus unnecessarily.
> 
> To avoid merging stuff back and forth, I'll push this series later in the
> cycle.
> 

Thanks Rafael.
Let me know in case if you need me to rebase onto your branch.

Regards,
Sudeep