17.10.2019 05:32, Viresh Kumar пишет: > On 16-10-19, 21:19, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 16.10.2019 17:58, Peter Geis пишет: >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:29 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I doubt Google will care much, since Android has moved on to aarch64. >>> Do they even support arm32 any more? >> >> Yes, I don't think there is a real need to care about Google. They won't >> use pure upstream and won't care about older hardware any ways. > > Well, using (almost) pure upstream is the idea I believe. And the thing is they > want to use a single multi-platform image which should be as small as possible > in size. So it won't have any drivers or platform stuff (if possible) and > everything is module. > > I am not sure about arm32/64 thing though. And it is okay if you don't want to > care about Google right now. That was just some side knowledge I had :) > I'll leave the module part as-is for now.
