From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] cpufreq: tegra20: Wrap cpufreq into platform
 driver
Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 11:09:37 +0300
Message-ID: <6127765f-e953-ce28-9994-43ffbe98703d@gmail.com>
References: <20180517180056.13336-1-digetx@gmail.com>
 <20180517180056.13336-11-digetx@gmail.com>
 <20180518020730.byftoaodycccze3m@vireshk-i7>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180518020730.byftoaodycccze3m@vireshk-i7>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>, Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org

On 18.05.2018 05:07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-05-18, 21:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> -static int __init tegra_cpufreq_init(void)
>> +static int tegra20_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  {
>> +	struct tegra20_cpufreq_data *data;
>>  	int err;
>>  
>> -	if (!of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,tegra20"))
>> -		return -ENODEV;
> 
> So this stuff wasn't really required as you are getting rid of that in
> the same series. Should we really add it then ? Maybe ..
> 

It's not strictly needed, but I'd prefer to keep that stuff for clarity as it
kinda shows the way that led to the final result.

[snip]