Hi Eduardo, On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On 30-03-2013 18:21, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > > > > On 10:53-20130327, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > > Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On 11:38-20130327, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On 03/27/2013 08:32 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > > > > > > On 02:23-20130327, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Converting the driver to a platform driver would be another > > > > > > > > > option. > > > > > > > > I think the platform_device conversion is the way to go. I think you > > > > should do that instead of PATCH 8/8 of your OMAP conversion to the > > > > generic driver[1]. > > > > > > Yep, thinking about this over lunch, I came to the same conclusion that > > > instead of checking on DT node existance, platform_device conversion > > > will solve both parts of the puzzle. > > > > Looked at this a little today. I see that the platform_driver CPUFreq > > driver approach was taken with several SoCs in mainline. Could someone > > explain the theory behind making the CPUFreq drivers platform_drivers, > > rather than just modules? > > > > The part that doesn't make sense to me is that the existing CPUFreq > > drivers don't represent an actual hardware block. Conceptually, they > > aren't drivers for the CPU, nor are they drivers for a CPU frequency > > scaling IP block. One might as well bind a CPUIdle driver or a CPU > > throttling thermal driver to the CPU device. > > I do agree with your point. On the other hand, I'd like to make a > clarification here. > > CPU throttling feature not really done as a driver. The feature is exported to > be used by policies built by other code. Check drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c. > > Thermal drivers are in fact drivers, as they are bound to an actual hardware > block, a bandgap, a thermal sensor or a thermistor. That might be the case for some or all of what's in mainline for the thermal framework. But I've seen at least one Linux BSP for an ARM SoC implement a thermal "cooling device" that isn't directly backed by any hardware IP block. Anyway, this is kind of a tangent. - Paul -- 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
