From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bilhuang Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] cpufreq: tegra: Re-model Tegra20 cpufreq driver Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:42:35 +0800 Message-ID: <52B41F1B.3030005@nvidia.com> References: <1387451926-21373-1-git-send-email-bilhuang@nvidia.com> <52B41B18.30302@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:5525 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755388Ab3LTKmM (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:42:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Stephen Warren , Thierry Reding , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" On 12/20/2013 06:33 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 20 December 2013 15:55, bilhuang wrote: >> Don't you think it worth creating a file here so this can be shared to >> arm64? > > We will see how to handle virtual devices when we will start getting > arm64 SoCs. Probably we might end up writing a single file in cpufreq, > if required, that will create virtual devices for every arm64 platform.. > > So, some people might use it and others wouldn't.. But no platform > specific files for such stuff. So, the best we can do for now is to move > these to platform code as we are talking about arm32 SoC's for now > which do have a mach-* directory.. > OK thanks, this is suggested by Stephen earlier, I'll let him comment in case he might think otherwise.