On 18-12-24, 08:41, Christian Marangi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 11:35:25PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 09:30:01AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 12-12-24, 13:01, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 at 22:16, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hmm, it looks like this needs to be moved and possibly split up. > > > > > > > > The provider part (for the clock and power-domain) belongs in > > > > /drivers/pmdomain/*, along with the other power-domain providers. > > > > > > > > Other than that, I was really expecting the cpufreq-dt to take care of the rest. > > > > > > > > To me, the above code belongs in a power-domain provider driver. While > > > > the below should be taken care of in cpufreq-dt, except for the device > > > > registration of the cpufreq-dt device, I guess. > > > > > > > > Viresh, what's your view on this? > > > > > > Sure, no issues.. These are all cpufreq related, but don't necessarily belong in > > > the cpufreq directory. > > > > > > > Problem is really DT schema... I wonder if it's acceptable to push a > > name-only driver in pmdomain just do detach from cpufreq. The cpufreq > > driver would manually probe the pmdomain. Is it acceptable? > > > > Or do you have alternative solution for this? > > > > Hi Viresk I notice the DT patch has been applied to -next but no > cpufreq patch. I'm confused how to further proceed and what changes are > needed. Any hint? The DT patch was fine and so I applied. I was waiting for Ulf to reply to your above query. -- viresh
