linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: rockchip: add 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1505152.fhSnu3pvDr@diego>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:54:44 +0100
From:	Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:	Feng Xiao <xf@...k-chips.com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
	rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, wxt@...k-chips.com, zyw@...k-chips.com,
	jay.xu@...k-chips.com, tim.chen@...k-chips.com, xxx@...k-chips.com,
	huangtao@...k-chips.com, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: rockchip: add driver

Am Montag, 21. März 2016, 15:20:49 schrieb Viresh Kumar:
> On 18-03-16, 13:56, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Also, on both the rk3368 as well as the rk3399, you probably want the
> > cluster- handling of arm-bL-cpufreq-dt.
> > Contrary to its name it is _not_ limited to switching between clusters,
> > but
> > can also control frequencies of multiple cpu-clusters running at the same
> > time.
> 
> We aren't adding any new users to bL driver, please use cpufreq-dt as that
> also supports multiple clusters now.

I hadn't seen that yet ... nice that cpufreq-dt now also supports clusters :-)

The other part still stands though, as we probably should register the 
platform-device somewhere else and not in some new special module.

When everything is using cpufreq-dt now, I guess we could just add it to the 
core rockchip clk-code. Or was there some agreement where this should be done 
(obviously not the devicetree itself)?