Hi Sudeep,
On 26 November 2014 at 22:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26/11/14 08:46, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> We only need to have one entry in cpus@cpu0 node which will match with
>> drivers
>> name.
> This seems fundamentally broken as the driver always needs to
> unconditionally refer to cpu0. Furthermore the node need not be called
> cpu0 as the name depends on its reg field.
I meant CPU0's node, whatever the name is. Its normally cpu0 now a days
but yes it can be something else as well :)
>> We can then add another file drivers/cpufreq/device_dt.c, which will add a
>> platform device with the name it finds from cpus@cpu0 node and existing
>> drivers
>> will work without any change. Or something else if somebody have a better
>> proposal. But lets fix the bindings first.
>
> IIUC you will retain the existing list of cpufreq-dt platform device
> creation as is. If not that breaks compatibility with old DT.
I couldn't get what exactly you understood :), but this is what I meant.
- Currently cpufreq drivers (like cpufreq-dt.c) are registering a
platform_driver
and platform specific code are registering a platform-device to match to this
driver.
- What will change is this platform specific code. The driver will stay as is.
- Now the devices wouldn't get created from platform-specific code, but
cpufreq core (may be a separate file for this: device_dt.c) will create platform
device based on the string it got from DT.
Makes sense?
>> +Optional properties:
>> +- dvfs-method: CPUFreq driver to probe. For example: "arm-bL-cpufreq-dt",
>> + "cpufreq-dt", etc
>
> You should manage this with compatible rather than a new property as
> it's not a real hardware property. IMHO Rob's suggestion[1] should work
> fine.
>
> IIUC, you can have the driver which create this platform device if DT
> has generic compatible unconditionally(e.g "cpufreq-dt" as you have
> chosen above). For all existing DT you can create a blacklist of
> compatibles to match(as it doesn't have the generic compatible) covering
I didn't get why you asked for a blacklist here. Why wouldn't "cpufreq-dt" in
compatible work for them ?
> all the existing platforms using cpufreq-dt driver, there by you can
> even remove the platform device creating from multiple places.
Yeah, we can remove all such occurrences for a single driver this way.
What I was suggesting earlier was to do this from a driver independent
file, so that its done once for all possible DT drivers. Like "cpufreq-dt",
"arm_big_little_dt". The same compatible property can be used there
too..
> IMO something like the patch below should work(not tested, also
> late_initcall is used just to demonstrate the idea)
>
> Rob, please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> +static const struct of_device_id compatible_machine_match[] = {
> + /* All new machines must have the below compatible to use this
> driver */
> + { .compatible = "cpufreq-generic-dt" },
> + /* BLACKLIST of existing users of cpufreq-dt below */
> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420" },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5800" },
> + {},
> +};
> +
> +static int cpufreq_generic_dt_init(void)
> +{
> + struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
> + struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "cpufreq-dt", };
> + /*
> + * Initialize the device for the platforms either
> + * blacklisted or compliant to generic compatible
> + */
> + if (!of_match_node(compatible_machine_match, root))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /* Instantiate cpufreq-dt */
> + platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +late_initcall(cpufreq_generic_dt_init);
Looks fine to me. Looks similar to what I had in mind for creating
devices from platform-independent 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
