On 09/07/2016 12:20 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 31-08-16, 21:53, Dave Gerlach wrote:
Some TI SoCs, like those in the AM335x, AM437x, DRA7x, and AM57x families,
have different OPPs available for the MPU depending on which specific
variant of the SoC is in use. This can be determined through use of the
revision and an eFuse register present in the silicon. Introduce a
ti-cpufreq driver that can read the aformentioned values and provide
them as version matching data to the opp framework. Through this the
opp-supported-hw dt binding that is part of the operating-points-v2
table can be used to indicate availability of OPPs for each device.
This driver also creates the "cpufreq-dt" platform_device after passing
the version matching data to the OPP framework so that the cpufreq-dt
handles the actual cpufreq implementation. Even without the necessary
data to pass the version matching data the driver will still create this
device to maintain backwards compatibility with operating-points v1
tables.
Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@xxxxxx>
---
v1->v2:
- Convert to module_platform_driver to match against new compatibles
in patch 1
- Cleaned up some bit shifts
- of_property_read_u32_array used rather than reading values individually
drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 11 ++
drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 1 +
drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 308 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 320 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
I am wondering if we should start writing OPP drivers instead. As this
patch doesn't have anything to do with cpufreq really :)
But its fine for now..
+static const struct of_device_id ti_cpufreq_of_match[] = {
+ { .compatible = "operating-points-v2-ti-am3352-cpu",
+ .data = &am3x_soc_data, },
+ { .compatible = "operating-points-v2-ti-am4372-cpu",
+ .data = &am4x_soc_data, },
+ { .compatible = "operating-points-v2-ti-dra7-cpu",
+ .data = &dra7_soc_data },
You should be using your SoC compatible strings here. OPP compatible
property isn't supposed to be (mis)used for this purpose.
Referring to my comments in patch 1, what if we end up changing the
bindings based on DT maintainer comments? We will have these compatible
strings, and at that point is it acceptable to match against them? Or is
it still better to match to SoC compatibles? I think it makes sense to
just probe against these.
Regards,
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
