On 11:39-20130327, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
> > #include <linux/module.h>
> > @@ -174,6 +175,19 @@ static inline void freq_table_free(void)
> > static int __cpuinit omap_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > {
> > int result = 0;
> > + struct device_node *np;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we have a device tree node describing OPPs,
> > + * we will NOT permit usage of omap-cpufreq driver.
> > + * use cpufreq-cpu0 driver to manage.
> > + */
> > + if (of_have_populated_dt()) {
> > + for_each_child_of_node(of_find_node_by_path("/cpus"), np) {
> > + if (of_get_property(np, "operating-points", NULL))
> > + return -EPERM;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> I think it's much cleaner to just convert this to a platform_driver like
> was done for the generic driver[1]. Then the registration in the
> previous patch can register the omap driver when needed.
Thanks for the review.
Yes. I agree. Will wait for any further comments on the DT angle before
I send out an V3.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
