From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] regulator: helper to extract regulator node based on supply name Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 11:00:42 -0600 Message-ID: <20111004170042.GA12036@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <1317118372-17052-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1317118372-17052-9-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <20110927122155.GE4289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4E81E281.505@ti.com> <20110927185913.GU4289@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4E82D63A.7030207@ti.com> <20110928122628.GF3279@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4E858D35.50903@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E858D35.50903@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rajendra Nayak Cc: Mark Brown , "Cousson, Benoit" , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "tony@atomide.com" , "Girdwood, Liam" , "patches@linaro.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 03:04:45PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > >>On 9/27/2011 8:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >>>I'm not sure how this should work in a device tree world, I'd *hope* > >>>we'd get a device tree node for the CPU and could then just make this a > >>>regular consumer thing but then the cpufreq drivers would need to be > >>>updated to make use of it. The only reason we allow null devices right > >>>now is the fact that cpufreq doesn't have a struct device it can use. > > > >>That's why we do have a MPU node in OMAP dts, in order to build an > >>omap_device that will be mainly used for the DVFS on the MPU. > > > >>And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some > >>omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU, > >>DSP, CortexM3...). > > > >Yeah, but that's very OMAP specific - we don't have that in general (in > >fact it's the only Linux platform I'm aware of that has a device for the > >CPU). > > But isn't this the right thing to do for everyone else too? > It is normal to have nodes for each CPU. The /cpus/ node normally contains cpu@* nodes for each logical cpu core, and I would expect nodes for each additional DSP and MPU core. Whether or not they belong in the /cpus/ node is a matter of design (we don't have any patterns for that yet). g.