On 12/05/2013 12:44 AM, Bill Huang wrote:
> Re-model Tegra cpufreq driver to support all Tegra series of SoCs.
>
> * Make tegra-cpufreq.c a generic Tegra cpufreq driver.
> * Move Tegra20 specific codes into tegra20-cpufreq.c.
> * Bind Tegra cpufreq dirver with a fake device so defer probe would work
> when we're going to get regulator in the driver to support voltage
> scaling (DVFS).
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra-cpufreq.c
> @@ -91,14 +40,10 @@ static int tegra_update_cpu_speed(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
...
> + if (soc_config->vote_emc_on_cpu_rate)
> + soc_config->vote_emc_on_cpu_rate(rate);
> +
> + ret = soc_config->cpu_clk_set_rate(rate * 1000);
> if (ret)
> pr_err("cpu-tegra: Failed to set cpu frequency to %lu kHz\n",
> rate);
Is there any/much shared code left in this file after this patch? It
seems like all this file does now is make each cpufreq callback function
call soc_config->the_same_function_name(). If so, wouldn't it be better
to simply implement completely separate tegar20-cpufreq and
tegra30-cpufreq drivers, and register them each directly with the
cpufreq core, to avoid this file doing all the indirection?
> -int __init tegra_cpufreq_init(void)
> +static struct {
> + char *compat;
> + int (*init)(struct tegra_cpufreq_data *,
> + const struct tegra_cpufreq_config **);
> +} tegra_init_funcs[] = {
> + { "nvidia,tegra20", tegra20_cpufreq_init },
> +};
> +
> +static int tegra_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
...
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tegra_init_funcs); i++) {
> + if (of_machine_is_compatible(tegra_init_funcs[i].compat)) {
> + ret = tegra_init_funcs[i].init(tegra_data, &soc_config);
> + if (!ret)
> + break;
> + else
> + goto out;
> + }
> }
> + if (i == ARRAY_SIZE(tegra_init_funcs))
> + goto out;
I think there are better ways of doing this than open-coding it. Perhaps
of_match_device() or the platform-driver equivalent could be made to work?
> +int __init tegra_cpufreq_init(void)
> +{
> + struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "tegra-cpufreq", };
> +
> + platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
> +
> + return 0;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tegra_cpufreq_init);
Perhaps instead of hard-coding the name "tegra-cpufreq" here, you could
dynamically construct the device name based on the DT's root compatible
value, register "${root_compatible}-cpufreq", e.g.
"nvidia,tegra20-cpufreq" or "nvidia,tegra30-cpufreq". That would allow
the kernel's standard device/driver matching mechanism to pick the
correct driver to instantiate. Perhaps you could even dynamically
register an OF device so that you can use of_match_device() in probe, if
there's some advantage of having a single driver that supports N chips.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
