[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151209091907.GF28374@ubuntu>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:49:07 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...inux.com,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, ajitpal.singh@...com,
maxime.coquelin@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] ARM: STi: Register CPUFreq device
On 09-12-15, 10:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 14:32:01 Lee Jones wrote:
> > @@ -161,3 +166,11 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata sti_smp_ops = {
> > .smp_secondary_init = sti_secondary_init,
> > .smp_boot_secondary = sti_boot_secondary,
> > };
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * CPUFreq Registration
> > + */
> > +void init_cpufreq(void)
> > +{
> > + platform_device_register_simple("sti-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
> > +}
> >
>
> Can you please do this under drivers/cpufreq somewhere?
>
> I really don't want to any more of these in platform code. Requiring a
> device to be created just to probe the driver is really silly.
He is actually creating two device right now..
- create sti-cpufreq device
- so that sti-cpufreq driver get probed
- And fix OPPs here first and then create cpufreq-dt device
- so that cpufreq-dt driver get probed
:)
I already recommended him that he can replace the first two points by
doing things from module_init() instead. And then create cpufreq-dt
device.
--
viresh
--
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