On Thursday 10 July 2014 08:39 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:19 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 9 July 2014 20:14, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Assuming you are updating bidnings as suggested by Stephen,
>>> patch looks good to me.
>>> Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx>
>>
>> Why do you still have a separate cpufreq driver for omap?
>> Would this patch help getting that out?
>>
>> I see this for omap:
>>
>> static inline void omap_init_cpufreq(void)
>> {
>> struct platform_device_info devinfo = { };
>>
>> if (!of_have_populated_dt())
>> devinfo.name = "omap-cpufreq";
>> else
>> devinfo.name = "cpufreq-generic";
>> platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
>> }
>>
>> and it makes me believe that you were just waiting for this patch?
>
> Sorry, am away on vacation and slow on emails. The plan was to kill
> omap cpufreq once all platforms convert to device tree only boot. Only
> platform left is OMAP3 based platforms - though the date for removing
> non-dt support has changed a couple of kernel revisions - but we
> should be able to remove that entire file with this change.
>
> We will need this support to go with the solution recommended for opp
> modifier series[1] - where platform code will populate or add OPPs
> based on "speed grade" sample detection.
>
Yep. Last time I blocked the series because all the DT conversions
were not done. Considering now the cpufreq-generic can work on non
DT platforms, I am ok to remove the omap-cpufreq.
Regards,
Santosh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
