From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: prefer SCMI cpufreq if supported Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 09:37:17 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180418155643.36464-1-code@mmayer.net> <20180418155643.36464-3-code@mmayer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180418155643.36464-3-code@mmayer.net> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Markus Mayer , Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Brian Norris , Gregory Fong Cc: Jim Quinlan , Broadcom Kernel List , Power Management List , ARM Kernel List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Markus Mayer List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On 04/18/2018 08:56 AM, Markus Mayer wrote: > From: Jim Quinlan > > If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new > approach can be used. > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan > Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer > --- > drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > index b07559b9ed99..b4861a730162 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > @@ -164,6 +164,8 @@ > #define BRCM_AVS_CPU_INTR "brcm,avs-cpu-l2-intr" > #define BRCM_AVS_HOST_INTR "sw_intr" > > +#define ARM_SCMI_COMPAT "arm,scmi" > + > struct pmap { > unsigned int mode; > unsigned int p1; > @@ -511,6 +513,20 @@ static int brcm_avs_prepare_init(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct device *dev; > int host_irq, ret; > > + /* > + * If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the more > + * modern approach can be used. > + */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL)) { > + struct device_node *np; > + > + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, ARM_SCMI_COMPAT); > + if (np) { > + of_node_put(np); > + return -ENXIO; > + } We would probably want to make sure that the node is also enabled (that is, does not have a status = "disabled" property) otherwise the check can be defeated. Something like: if (np && of_device_is_available(np)) should be good for that. Thanks! -- Florian