From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Cc: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
"grant.likely@linaro.org" <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
"rob.herring@calxeda.com" <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/19] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 10:24:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <522D93D7.4010307@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1309061539310.11068@axis700.grange>
On 06/09/13 14:44, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>
>> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
>>
>> Now that the cpu device registration initialises the of_node(if available)
>> appropriately for all the cpus, parsing here is redundant.
>>
>> This patch removes all DT parsing and uses cpu->of_node instead.
>>
>> Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
>> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 23 ++++-------------------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.=
>> c
>> index ad1fde2..5b05c26 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> @@ -174,29 +174,17 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver cpu0_cpufreq_driver =3D =
>> {
>> =20
>> static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> -=09struct device_node *np, *parent;
>> +=09struct device_node *np;
>> =09int ret;
>> =20
>> -=09parent =3D of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
>> -=09if (!parent) {
>> -=09=09pr_err("failed to find OF /cpus\n");
>> -=09=09return -ENOENT;
>> -=09}
>> -
>> -=09for_each_child_of_node(parent, np) {
>> -=09=09if (of_get_property(np, "operating-points", NULL))
>> -=09=09=09break;
>> -=09}
>> +=09cpu_dev =3D &pdev->dev;
>> =20
>> +=09np =3D of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
>
> Has this actually been tested? This seems to break cpufreq-cpu0. The
> reason is, that this probe function is called not for the DT CPU node, but
> for a special virtual cpufreq-cpu0 platform device, typically created by
> platforms, using
>
> platform_device_register_simple("cpufreq-cpu0", -1, NULL, 0);
>
> which then of course doesn't have on .of_node associated with it.
>
Hi Guennadi,
Based on my understanding of the original code:
cpu_dev = &pdev->dev;
...
ret = of_init_opp_table(cpu_dev);
of_init_opp_table needs cpu_dev to be get_cpu_device(0). My
understanding was that platform using cpufreq-cpu0 sets &pdev->dev to
get_cpu_device(0). But looks like that's not the case.
Hi Shawn,
Can you please clarify ? The fix would be as below but I would like to
know if setting cpu_dev to get_cpu_device(0) instead of &pdev->dev has
any impact on other parts of code using cpu_dev ?
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
index cbfffa9..871c336 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ 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);
np = of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node);
if (!np) {
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-09 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1374492747-13879-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
[not found] ` <1376991021-12160-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
[not found] ` <1376991021-12160-13-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com>
2013-09-06 13:44 ` [PATCH v4 12/19] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: remove device tree parsing for cpu nodes Guennadi Liakhovetski
2013-09-09 9:24 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha [this message]
2013-09-09 14:32 ` Shawn Guo
2013-09-09 15:24 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-09-10 2:44 ` Shawn Guo
2013-09-10 10:56 ` Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
2013-09-10 11:19 ` Shawn Guo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=522D93D7.4010307@arm.com \
--to=sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=g.liakhovetski@gmx.de \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jonas@southpole.se \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).