16.10.2019 17:58, Peter Geis пишет: > 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? Yes, I don't think there is a real need to care about Google. They won't use pure upstream and won't care about older hardware any ways.
