Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ARM: OMAP3+: use cpu0-cpufreq driver in device tree supported boot

[Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>]

On 14:40-20130405, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [130405 14:37]:
> > On 14:10-20130405, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [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:
> 
> OK makes sense to me.
Kevin has picked up [2]. So, my V4 will just contain this patch :).
Will hold sending it out till we conclude on Roger's thread.
> 
> > 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);
> > +	}
> >  }
> 
> Maybe move platform_device_register_full(&devinfo) out of
> the if else as the different naming needed is the only
> difference?
How does the following look?
Option a) not have a dummy node if CPUFREQ_CPU0 is not configured:
static inline void omap_init_cpufreq(void)
{
	struct platform_device_info devinfo = { };

	if (!of_have_populated_dt())
		devinfo.name = "omap-cpufreq";
	else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPUFREQ_CPU0))
		devinfo.name = "cpufreq-cpu0"
	
	if (devinfo.name)
		platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
}

Option b) leave a dummy node registered
static inline void omap_init_cpufreq(void)
{
	struct platform_device_info devinfo = { };

	if (!of_have_populated_dt())
		devinfo.name = "omap-cpufreq";
	else
		devinfo.name = "cpufreq-cpu0"
	
	platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
}

If there are no objections to (b), I dont mind it either.
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon