On 7 August 2013 23:16, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 08:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> cpufreq-cpu0 driver can be probed over DT only if a corresponding device node is
>> created for the SoC which wants to use it. Lets create a platform device for
>> cpufreq-cpu0 driver for Tegra.
>>
>> Also it removes the Kconfig entry responsible to compiling tegra-cpufreq driver
>> and hence there will not be any conflicts between two cpufreq drivers.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c
>
>> static void __init tegra_dt_init(void)
>> {
>> + struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "cpufreq-cpu0", };
>
> static? const?
static: yes
const: no, as it might be modified by platform_device_register_full()
>> struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
>> struct soc_device *soc_dev;
>> struct device *parent = NULL;
>>
>> tegra_clocks_apply_init_table();
>> + platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
>
> This seems awfully like going back to board files. Shouldn't something
> that binds to the CPU nodes register the cpufreq device automatically,
> based on the CPU's compatible value?
This link has got some information why we can't have a node for cpufreq
or a compatibility value..
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/9018
--
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
