On 28 January 2013 12:32, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:42:29AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "cpufreq-cpu0", };
>> > platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
>>
>> Something similar was being discussed with Andrew (cc'd) on his patch
>> for kikwood cpufreq driver.
>>
>> We shouldn't encourage addition of above as we are moving towards DT.
>
> Moving towards DT does not really mean that we should never register
> platform_device from platform code. DT is designed to present physical
> devices, while what I'm adding here is somewhat a virtual one. I'm
> just using the platform_device/platform_driver mechanism to instantiate
> the driver on particular platform.
>
>> So, i would except an compatible array too in your patch and then driver
>> can be probed based on compatible string being present in cpu node.
>
> I believe device tree maintainer already stated that we should not
> have node/compatible for cpuidle/cpufreq such stuff in DT merely for
> asking DT core to create platform_device for them.
I see. I am really not sure if the alternative of DT node (i.e. platform_device)
is good enough.
@Arnd: What do you say?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
