From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ARM: OMAP3+: use cpu0-cpufreq driver in device tree supported boot Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:32:51 -0500 Message-ID: <20130405213250.GA8534@kahuna> References: <20130404190053.GA4371@kahuna> <515E9E79.8010300@ti.com> <20130405161338.GB10155@atomide.com> <20130405163254.GA7259@kahuna> <20130405170527.GC10155@atomide.com> <20130405171750.GA7398@kahuna> <20130405192829.GE10155@atomide.com> <20130405200201.GA7804@kahuna> <20130405211003.GK6182@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130405211003.GK6182@atomide.com> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: Rajendra Nayak , Kevin Hilman , linux-omap , Rob Herring , cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Paul Walmsley , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Cousson , Jon Hunter , Keerthy , Santosh Shilimkar , Shawn Guo List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 14:10-20130405, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Nishanth Menon [130405 13:06]: > > On 12:28-20130405, Tony Lindgren wrote: [...] > > > How about just set it up in omap2_common_pm_init instead > > > of the board-generic? > > umm.. We want to eventually want to get rid of mach-omap2/pm.c (all > > those create processor devices etc should go away with proper > > representation of devices as nodes in DT if possible. > > But, I think you mean something like in the "else" condition of > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2359711/ ? - I'd again have the same > > request of not having anything to do with pm.c and keeping as little as > > possible for all TI processors in mach-omap2. > > > > Could you enlighten me about why you'd not like it in board-generic.c? > > will creating an function ti_generic_cpufreq_init() in board-generic.c > > and calling it from omap_generic_init help? > > I'd like to keep board-generic.c down to minimum. Can't you > set it up in omap_init_cpufreq() in your second patch of this > series? Thanks. That seems to be a better compromise. Will do. I can sequence patch [2] above the current patch[1] if there is a need to fix multi-arch builds for 3.9: in that case I will probably leave the current [2] patch as is, and once our clock representation discussion is done, the rev 4 of the patch [1], I can do the following: diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c index 8d15f9a..b250689 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c @@ -267,8 +267,14 @@ static void __init omap4_init_voltages(void) static inline void omap_init_cpufreq(void) { - struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "omap-cpufreq", }; - platform_device_register_full(&devinfo); + struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "omap-cpufreq", } + + if (!of_have_populated_dt()) { + platform_device_register_full(&devinfo); + } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPUFREQ_CPU0)) { + devinfo.name = "cpufreq-cpu0" + platform_device_register_full(&devinfo); + } } static int __init omap2_common_pm_init(void) @@ -301,9 +307,9 @@ int __init omap2_common_pm_late_init(void) /* Smartreflex device init */ omap_devinit_smartreflex(); - /* cpufreq dummy device instantiation */ - omap_init_cpufreq(); } + /* cpufreq dummy device instantiation */ + omap_init_cpufreq(); #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND suspend_set_ops(&omap_pm_ops); [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2399201/ [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2359711/ -- Regards, Nishanth Menon