On 23 July 2014 12:24, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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"?
Don't know, its not optionaly for tegra124 and so a "depends on"
might fit better ?
>> > +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.
Probably I didn't write it well..
What I meant was after doing a get_cpu_device() we might also need
to do of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node) as we would be using of_node
in further code.
--
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
