On 08/07/2013 11:59 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 7 August 2013 23:23, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That link only describes why we shouldn't have a dedicated compatible >> value for cpufreq. I certainly agree with that. However, I think it's >> reasonable that whatever code binds to: >> >> compatible = "arm,cortex-a9"; >> >> ... should instantiate any virtual devices that relate to the CPU. > > But how would we know here if platform really wants us to probe > cpufreq-cpu0 driver? On multiplatform kernel there can be multiple > cpufreq drivers available and there has to be some sort of code > in DT or platform code that reflects which driver we want to use. Presumably the code would look at the top-level DT node's compatible value (e.g. "nvidia,tegra20"). -- 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
