Hi,
On 19. 4. 15. 오후 11:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> The devfreq driver can be used on Tegra30 without any code change and
> it works perfectly fine, the default Tegra124 parameters are good enough
> for Tegra30.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/devfreq/Kconfig | 4 ++--
> drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> index a78dffe603c1..78c33ddd4eea 100644
> --- a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> @@ -92,8 +92,8 @@ config ARM_EXYNOS_BUS_DEVFREQ
> This does not yet operate with optimal voltages.
>
> config ARM_TEGRA_DEVFREQ
> - tristate "Tegra DEVFREQ Driver"
> - depends on ARCH_TEGRA_124_SOC
> + tristate "NVIDIA Tegra30+ DEVFREQ Driver"
Looks good to me. But, I have a question.
'Tegra30+' expression is enough in order to indicate
the support for both tegra30 and tegra124?
In my case, it is difficult to catch the meaning
of which tegra30+ support the kind of tegra124.
> + depends on ARCH_TEGRA
> select PM_OPP
> help
> This adds the DEVFREQ driver for the Tegra family of SoCs.
> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c
> index f0711d5ad27d..0a2465a58cf5 100644
> --- a/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c
> @@ -719,6 +719,7 @@ static int tegra_devfreq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> static const struct of_device_id tegra_devfreq_of_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-actmon" },
> { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-actmon" },
> { },
> };
>
Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
Samsung Electronics
