On 30.03.2016 00:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29 March 2016 at 20:34, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 29 March 2016 12:09:49 Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> -static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
>>> -{
>>> - struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>>> - const struct of_device_id *match;
>>> -
>>> - match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root);
>>> - if (!match) {
>>> - platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
>>> - return;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>> - platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0);
>>> -}
>>
>> How is the "exynos-cpufreq" case handled now? Is that no longer used now?
>> I assume the patch is correct based on Krzysztof's review, but it might be
>> good to explain this better.
>
> That's stale code, the driver got removed some time back.
Yeah, that's old driver, no longer existing. It makes sense to split the
patch - first remove the stale exynos-cpufreq and then move cpufreq-dt.
This would help avoid confusion when grepping through the history.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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
