On 16-10-19, 21:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 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. Well, using (almost) pure upstream is the idea I believe. And the thing is they want to use a single multi-platform image which should be as small as possible in size. So it won't have any drivers or platform stuff (if possible) and everything is module. I am not sure about arm32/64 thing though. And it is okay if you don't want to care about Google right now. That was just some side knowledge I had :) -- viresh
