Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Remove use of disable_cpufreq

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 09/05/2025 01:04, Aaron Kling via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@gmail.com>
> 
> Instead, unregister the cpufreq device for this fatal fail case.

This is not a complete sentence. Seems to be a continuation of the 
subject which is not clear to the reader (at least not to me). No 
mention of why or what this is fixing, if anything?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Aaron Kling <webgeek1234@gmail.com>
> ---
>   drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c
> index 514146d98bca2d8aa59980a14dff3487cd8045f6..bc0691e8971f9454def37f489e4a3e244100b9f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c
> @@ -168,7 +168,10 @@ static int __maybe_unused tegra124_cpufreq_resume(struct device *dev)
>   disable_dfll:
>   	clk_disable_unprepare(priv->dfll_clk);
>   disable_cpufreq:
> -	disable_cpufreq();
> +	if (!IS_ERR(priv->cpufreq_dt_pdev)) {
> +		platform_device_unregister(priv->cpufreq_dt_pdev);
> +		priv->cpufreq_dt_pdev = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> +	}

So you are proposing to unregister the device in resume? That seems odd. 
I see there is no remove for this driver, but I really don't see the 
value in this.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic