From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Coquelin Subject: Re: [STLinux Kernel] [PATCH 7/8] cpufreq: st: Provide runtime initialised driver for ST's platforms Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 09:31:24 +0200 Message-ID: <55890B4C.5000406@st.com> References: <1434987837-24212-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1434987837-24212-8-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150623025031.GD16776@linux> <20150623071647.GD3245@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150623071647.GD3245@x1> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Lee Jones , Viresh Kumar Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/23/2015 09:16 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > Thanks for your timely review Viresh. > > On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> On 22-06-15, 16:43, Lee Jones wrote: >>> +config ARM_ST_CPUFREQ >>> + bool "ST CPUFreq support" >> Isn't using ST just too generic? There are multiple SoCs ST has been >> involved with, I have worked on a completely different series. >> Probably a more relative string is required here, like stih407 ? > This is ST's only CPUFreq implementation and is pretty board > agnostic. This particular driver only currently supports the STiH407 > family, but internally it supports some others too. I'll have a chat > and see if we can make it more specific somehow. I think you can use STI instead. Regards, Maxime