[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52029736.8040007@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:51:34 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.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 08/07/2013 11:59 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 7 August 2013 23:23, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> That link only describes why we shouldn't have a dedicated compatible
>> value for cpufreq. I certainly agree with that. However, I think it's
>> reasonable that whatever code binds to:
>>
>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
>>
>> ... should instantiate any virtual devices that relate to the CPU.
>
> But how would we know here if platform really wants us to probe
> cpufreq-cpu0 driver? On multiplatform kernel there can be multiple
> cpufreq drivers available and there has to be some sort of code
> in DT or platform code that reflects which driver we want to use.
Presumably the code would look at the top-level DT node's compatible
value (e.g. "nvidia,tegra20").
--
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