16.10.2019 08:18, Viresh Kumar пишет: > On 16-10-19, 00:16, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> Re-parenting to intermediate clock is supported now by the clock driver >> and thus there is no need in a customized CPUFreq driver, all that code >> is common for both Tegra20 and Tegra30. The available CPU freqs are now >> specified in device-tree in a form of OPPs, all users should update their >> device-trees. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 4 +- >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 2 + >> drivers/cpufreq/tegra20-cpufreq.c | 236 ++++++--------------------- >> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm >> index a905796f7f85..2118c45d0acd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm >> @@ -301,8 +301,8 @@ config ARM_TANGO_CPUFREQ >> default y >> >> config ARM_TEGRA20_CPUFREQ >> - tristate "Tegra20 CPUFreq support" >> - depends on ARCH_TEGRA >> + bool "Tegra20 CPUFreq support" > > Google is currently working on the GKI (generic kernel image) project where they > want to use a single kernel image with modules for all kind of android devices. > And for that they need all such drivers to be built as module. Since this is > already an module, I would ask you to keep it as is instead of moving it to bool > here. Else some google guy will switch it back as module later on. > > LGTM otherwise. Nice work. Thanks. > Okay, I'll keep the modularity in v2. Although, tegra20-cpufreq isn't a driver anymore because now it merely prepares OPP table for the cpufreq-dt driver, which is really a one-shot action that is enough to do during boot and thus modularity is a bit redundant here.
