On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:14:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21 July 2014 21:09, Tuomas Tynkkynen <ttynkkynen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> > index 7364a53..df3c73e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> > @@ -244,6 +244,7 @@ config ARM_SPEAR_CPUFREQ
> > config ARM_TEGRA_CPUFREQ
> > bool "TEGRA CPUFreq support"
> > depends on ARCH_TEGRA
> > + depends on GENERIC_CPUFREQ_CPU0
>
> Wouldn't this also disturb the existing cpufreq driver for earlier
> tegra platforms? i.e. we don't need cpufreq-cpu0 for them
> atleast as of now.
Perhaps this should be "select" rather than "depends on"?
> > +static int tegra124_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0);
> > + if (!cpu_dev)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
>
> Shouldn't we do a of_node_get() here?
I think this would need to be get_device() since it's the struct device
that's being used subsequently.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpTg7juR5CPL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
