On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:51:24PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote: > On 11/17/2014 01:43 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > >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. > > > >Thierry > > > > My understanding is that there needs to be no code inside soctherm to handle > it, as the cpufreq driver (cpufreq-dt) will register a cooling device that > will then be bound to the soctherm sensors using the of-thermal device tree > properties. At this moment, however, we don't have that cpufreq driver so > this patch is still useless for Tegra. But if the cpufreq driver will automatically do this already, why do we even need to check for it in the soctherm driver? Thierry
Attachment:
pgpOfxMreF68f.pgp
Description: PGP signature
