linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: Tegra: start using cpufreq-cpu0 driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 7 Aug 2013 23:19:09 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc:	rjw@...k.pl, swarren@...dia.com, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	patches@...aro.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mturquette@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: Tegra: start using cpufreq-cpu0 driver

On 7 August 2013 23:16, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 08:46 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> cpufreq-cpu0 driver can be probed over DT only if a corresponding device node is
>> created for the SoC which wants to use it. Lets create a platform device for
>> cpufreq-cpu0 driver for Tegra.
>>
>> Also it removes the Kconfig entry responsible to compiling tegra-cpufreq driver
>> and hence there will not be any conflicts between two cpufreq drivers.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra.c
>
>>  static void __init tegra_dt_init(void)
>>  {
>> +     struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "cpufreq-cpu0", };
>
> static? const?

static: yes
const: no, as it might be modified by platform_device_register_full()

>>       struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr;
>>       struct soc_device *soc_dev;
>>       struct device *parent = NULL;
>>
>>       tegra_clocks_apply_init_table();
>> +     platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
>
> This seems awfully like going back to board files. Shouldn't something
> that binds to the CPU nodes register the cpufreq device automatically,
> based on the CPU's compatible value?

This link has got some information why we can't have a node for cpufreq
or a compatibility value..

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.cpufreq/9018
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/