Ccc'ing Grant and Rob as well. On 20 December 2013 21:59, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, I definitely don't agree here. The rules for arch/arm64 are: no > platform-specific code. We should immediately start planning for that. > If this means renaming the file that creates the virtual device from > tegra-cpufreq.c to something else, so be it, but we shouldn't go > backwards and push stuff into the arch directories. I don't mind doing this now as well if it is generic enough. I wasn't sure if you guys wanted to take it on now.. @Bill: So, please create a separate commit for creating such file which would create a virtual device for probing cpufreq drivers with name picked from root-node. Compilation of such a file should be configurable but if it is compiled, then it shouldn't cause any problems if that device isn't used, for multiplatform kernels specially.. Probably then you can widen the scope of your patchset by modifying some of the existing drivers which require a device to get cpufreq driver probed. Currently they are all making such a device from their arch/ stuff. I am not sure about the location of such file. Should this be placed in DT code somewhere or kept in cpufreq? Rob/Grant ?? -- viresh -- 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
