On Friday 30 January 2015 17:51:24 Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > > @@ -90,6 +84,20 @@ config ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW > > > > > > If in doubt, say N. > > > > > > +config ARM_EXYNOS5440_CPUFREQ > > > + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5440" > > > + depends on SOC_EXYNOS5440 > > > + depends on HAVE_CLK && OF > > > + select PM_OPP > > > + default y > > > + help > > > + This adds the CPUFreq driver for Samsung EXYNOS5440 > > > + SoC. The nature of exynos5440 clock controller is > > > + different than previous exynos controllers so not using > > > + the common exynos framework. > > > + > > > + If in doubt, say N. > > > > I believe this one also has to be tristate, for the same reason. > > > > I agree with you that it is better if we make it tristate. So, on my > side, I have no concerns changing it to tristate. > > However, the exynos5440 cpufreq driver does not depend on of thermal as > of today, and therefore, I did not touch this driver for this matter. > Meaning, if it is not causing troubles, no need to mess with it. > > But I can add this change. No issues, on my side. Sorry, my mistake. I remembered incorrectly that the problem was in both modules, but you are right that it does not exist in the exynos5440 one. It is not a mistake to turn this into tristate, but there is no immediate neeed, so either version is fine. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |