Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> + { .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.
>
> I mean that both the driver may try to register to the cpufreq core if
> they are both compiled in a single image.
Euh I still don't follow you. The only driver that can register to the cpufreq
core is cpufreq-dt.
Now the only case I see is that there are 2 cpufreq-dt platform_device created
from cpufreq-dt-platdev. Given that there is only 1 call to
platform_device_register_data() in it, I don't see how it is possible.
Now if you are worried that 2 cpufreq-dt devices are created, ie. 1 for pxa25x
and one for pxa27x:
- this looks impossible given the cpufreq_dt_platdev_init() code
- no device-tree will ever be compatible with both of them, even if a single
kernel binary will be compatible with both of them
Tell me if this is the information you're looking for.
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
