[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpon9qmowJ4PmL-nvnoaCzJSC-ZSPv8EUOyoFcTdRqNRwnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 18:31:52 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, cpufreq@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 02/22] cpufreq: ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ needs ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY
On 3 May 2013 17:45, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> In this particular case I think it is OK to make both ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ and
> ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ depend on ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY, because (in theory?) the
> latter may be set without the former (unless you want to make ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ
> depend on ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ, but then it may be kind of confusing to
> users).
ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ is the core cpufreq code for big LITTLE SoC's and every
other driver will be a glue providing ops to it. So, ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ
does depend
on ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ and that's why i added depends on
ARM_CPU_TOPOLOGY in ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ only and depends on
ARM_BIG_LITTLE_CPUFREQ in ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ.
But the problem is if ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ isn't selected then we still get
ARM_DT_BL_CPUFREQ enabled in menuconfig but a warning just before compilation.
Which Arnd pointed to..
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists