Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Allow building as a module

[Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>]

On 19/05/2025 11:37, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15-05-25, 07:41, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Yes and that is understood. I see a few drivers calling ...
>>
>>   platform_device_register_simple("cpufreq-dt", -1, NULL, 0);
>>
>> One option, and I don't know if this would be acceptable, would be to add a
>> new wrapper function in the cpufreq-dt driver for the above that other
>> drivers could call and that would create the dependency you need.
> 
> Doing that won't be a problem, but I doubt if that is a better than
> adding a soft dependency here. I personally felt that the soft
> dependency may be the right way here. The cpufreq-dt file presents a
> driver, a device can be added from any file and that doesn't require
> the driver file to be inserted first. If the platform wants to
> simplify and create a dependency, a soft dependency looks okay.

The only downside of a soft dependency is that this driver could load 
but if the cpufreq-dt driver is missing for whatever reason, it might 
not be obvious. Ideally it is better if this driver does not load at all 
if the cpufreq-dt is not present.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic