Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 15-10-16, 21:57, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>> For device-tree based pxa25x and pxa27x platforms, cpufreq-dt driver is
>> doing the job as well as pxa2xx-cpufreq, so add these platforms to the
>> compatibility list.
>>
>> This won't work for legacy non device-tree platforms where
>> pxa2xx-cpufreq is still required.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
>> index 0bb44d5b5df4..356825b5c9b8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
>> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id machines[] __initconst = {
>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx7d", },
>>
>> { .compatible = "marvell,berlin", },
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa250", },
>> + { .compatible = "marvell,pxa270", },
>>
>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250", },
>> { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", },
>
> Isn't there a race between cpufreq-dt and the platform driver to
> register first ?
Ah, could you be more specific about the race you're talking of ?
My understanding was that cpufreq-dt-platdev does create the device, and
cpufreq-dt is a driver for it, so there is no race but a direct relationship
AFAIU.
> Also, it seems that atleast the next two patches are required before
> applying this? You need to fix the order if that is the case.
Ok, as you wish, let it become number 3 and (2, 3) become (1, 2).
Cheers.
--
Robert
--
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
