On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 03:04:45PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > On Wednesday 28 September 2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > >>On 9/27/2011 8:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > >>>I'm not sure how this should work in a device tree world, I'd *hope* > >>>we'd get a device tree node for the CPU and could then just make this a > >>>regular consumer thing but then the cpufreq drivers would need to be > >>>updated to make use of it. The only reason we allow null devices right > >>>now is the fact that cpufreq doesn't have a struct device it can use. > > > >>That's why we do have a MPU node in OMAP dts, in order to build an > >>omap_device that will be mainly used for the DVFS on the MPU. > > > >>And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some > >>omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU, > >>DSP, CortexM3...). > > > >Yeah, but that's very OMAP specific - we don't have that in general (in > >fact it's the only Linux platform I'm aware of that has a device for the > >CPU). > > But isn't this the right thing to do for everyone else too? > It is normal to have nodes for each CPU. The /cpus/ node normally contains cpu@* nodes for each logical cpu core, and I would expect nodes for each additional DSP and MPU core. Whether or not they belong in the /cpus/ node is a matter of design (we don't have any patterns for that yet). g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
