On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:47:33PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote: > > > Tested-by: Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen@xxxxxxxx> > > > > > > One potential issue I can see is that if the cpufreq driver fails > > > to probe then you'll never get the thermal driver either. For > > > example, Tegra124 currently has no cpufreq driver, so if > > > CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL was enabled, then the soctherm driver would > > > never be able to probe. But I don't really have a solution for this > > > either. > > > > It doesn't seem like there's any code whatsoever to deal with cpufreq > > within the soctherm driver, so deferring probe based on something > > we're not using anyway seems rather useless. > > So, If I understood you correctly - this patch is not needed in the > /tegra_soctherm.c:[tegra_defconfig] driver and can be safely omitted in > v2 of this driver. What I'm saying is that I don't think doing this mass conversion wholesale is useful since none of the drivers register a cooling device based on cpufreq. In other words: if you're not going to use a feature there's no use testing for it. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpOWOvWoz5mK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
