On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:29 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 16.10.2019 08:18, Viresh Kumar пишет: > > On 16-10-19, 00:16, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >> Re-parenting to intermediate clock is supported now by the clock driver > >> and thus there is no need in a customized CPUFreq driver, all that code > >> is common for both Tegra20 and Tegra30. The available CPU freqs are now > >> specified in device-tree in a form of OPPs, all users should update their > >> device-trees. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 4 +- > >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 2 + > >> drivers/cpufreq/tegra20-cpufreq.c | 236 ++++++--------------------- > >> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm > >> index a905796f7f85..2118c45d0acd 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm > >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm > >> @@ -301,8 +301,8 @@ config ARM_TANGO_CPUFREQ > >> default y > >> > >> config ARM_TEGRA20_CPUFREQ > >> - tristate "Tegra20 CPUFreq support" > >> - depends on ARCH_TEGRA > >> + bool "Tegra20 CPUFreq support" > > > > Google is currently working on the GKI (generic kernel image) project where they > > want to use a single kernel image with modules for all kind of android devices. > > And for that they need all such drivers to be built as module. Since this is > > already an module, I would ask you to keep it as is instead of moving it to bool > > here. Else some google guy will switch it back as module later on. > > > > LGTM otherwise. Nice work. Thanks. > > > > Okay, I'll keep the modularity in v2. > > Although, tegra20-cpufreq isn't a driver anymore because now it merely > prepares OPP table for the cpufreq-dt driver, which is really a one-shot > action that is enough to do during boot and thus modularity is a bit > redundant here. I doubt Google will care much, since Android has moved on to aarch64. Do they even support arm32 any more?
