Am Montag, 21. M?rz 2016, 16:13:40 schrieb Heiko St?bner: > Hi, > > Am Montag, 21. M?rz 2016, 21:24:32 schrieb Feng Xiao: > > ? 2016/3/21 17:58, Viresh Kumar ??: > > > On 21-03-16, 10:54, Heiko St?bner wrote: > > >> I hadn't seen that yet ... nice that cpufreq-dt now also supports > > >> clusters :-) > > >> > > >> The other part still stands though, as we probably should register the > > >> platform-device somewhere else and not in some new special module. > > >> > > >> When everything is using cpufreq-dt now, I guess we could just add it > > >> to > > >> the core rockchip clk-code. Or was there some agreement where this > > >> should be done (obviously not the devicetree itself)? > > > > Of_clk_init is called early, and platform_device_register_simple should > > be called after devices_init, it will be failed to do it from clk-code. > > So we need add a new file or add module_init to each clock controller > > driver(like clk-rk3368.c, clk-rk3399.c) ? > > as Viresh said, it should be ok to do it like your approach creating a > module in drivers/cpufreq. But the compatible check is necessary. > > Doing it this way also makes it easier to have Seem like I forgot the complete my sentence here. This should've been Doing it this way also makes it easier to have everything go into cpufreq-dt once that whitelist appears that Viresh wrote about. So this might be better than to distribute this stuff around other subsystems, as I originally suggested. > > > > Yeah, there was a discussion around creating a white or black list of > > > platforms that want to create a platform device for cpufreq-dt. That can > > > be done in cpufreq-dt.c or a new file, but I haven't worked out on that > > > yet. > > > > > > You can do it from clk-code or from the driver that was added in this > > > thread. Just that you need to match your platform's compatible string > > > before doing that. > > > > Rockchip-cpufreq.c depends on ARM_ROCKCHIP_CPUFREQ, it will not be > > compiled on non-Rockchip platforms. > > The driver can support all Rockchip SoCs up to now, add > > of_machine_is_compatible may be redundant ? > > Please always keep multiplatform in mind. These days the kernel can be > compiled for multiple architectures at the same time, so you can have > support for Rockchip, Exynos, Qualcom and whatever in the same kernel > image. > > Therefore a compile-time check is not enough and you need to check the > actually running machine as well. > > > Heiko
