On Mon, 29 Jul 2013, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 26 July 2013 18:44, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote: > > As far as I am concerned, the original argument Shawn made[1] is convincing > > enough for me. > > > > Will probably look at Viresh and others to see if there is a change in > > opinion. > > I would say that the earlier comments "a real hardware device is required > for a node to be present in DT" still stands Of course. > and so this patch doesn't introduce anything new. I wasn't proposing to add a new DT node, I was only proposing to add a compatibility line to an existing node, that doesn't create a device normally so far. > @Rob: What do you think about getting a DT node for probing cpufreq > driver? We surely need some way without declaring a platform device > to get driver probed.. > > Or if we can put this information in the cpu node, which we don't have > to replicate in all cpus.. Yes, that was the idea. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- 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
