On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2014 06:41:15 Thomas Abraham wrote:
>> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Remove the platform device instantiation for Exynos specific cpufreq
>> driver and add the platform device for cpufreq-cpu0 driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> index b32a907..489a495 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> @@ -232,7 +232,9 @@ void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void)
>>
>> void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
>> {
>> - platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
>> + if (!(of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5420")) &&
>> + !(of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5440")))
>> + platform_device_register_simple("cpufreq-cpu0", -1, NULL, 0);
>> }
>>
>
> Could we please come up with a way to probe this from DT in the cpufreq-cpu0
> driver itself, so we don't have to add a device in every platform using it?
Okay, I don't have a solution for this as of now. Would this be
considered as a blocker for this series? I hope we could just live
with this for now.
Thanks,
Thomas.
>
> I realize you copied it from the other platforms using this driver, but
> it still seems really wrong.
>
> Arnd
--
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
