From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] cpufreq: mediatek: Add MT8173 cpufreq driver Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 10:47:04 +0530 Message-ID: <20150709051704.GL1805@linux> References: <1435717005-20012-1-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <1435717005-20012-3-git-send-email-pi-cheng.chen@linaro.org> <20150708113455.GF1805@linux> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pi-Cheng Chen Cc: Michael Turquette , Matthias Brugger , Mark Rutland , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09-07-15, 09:55, Pi-Cheng Chen wrote: > That's what I did in previous version. But the reason I use the device- > driver model is to handle the defer probing issue. Since there's no > arch/arm64/mach-mediatek/ directory to hold the device registration > code anymore, no device tree way to match cpufreq driver > (please correct me if there's any), and initcall seems not handle > defer probing either, therefore I put both device and driver > registration in this function. I know it's crappy. :( > Do you have any suggestion to do it right and handle defer probing > properly? Sounds reasonable. Just add proper comment in code to explain that. -- viresh