[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160425125605.GG6104@vireshk-i7>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:26:05 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, nm@...com,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
sboyd@...eaurora.org, Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] cpufreq: mvebu: Use generic platdev driver
On 25-04-16, 14:53, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 25 April 2016 08:30:41 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> I realize that the ordering is fixed through the way that the kernel
> is linked, my worry is more about someone changing the code in some
> way because it's not obvious from reading the code that the
> dependency exists. If either the armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init()
> initcall gets changed so it does not always get called, or the
> cpufreq_dt_platdev_init() initcall gets changed so it comes a little
> earlier, things will break.
cpufreq-dt will just error out in that case, because it wouldn't find
any OPPs registered to the OPP-core. It *shouldn't* crash and if it
does, then we have a problem to fix.
> > The other thing that can happen is that armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init()
> > call can fail. In that case, most of the times cpufreq-dt ->init()
> > will fail as well, so even that is fine for me.
> >
> > And, so I think we can keep this patch as is.
>
> What are the downsides of moving armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init()
> into drivers/cpufreq?
More special code :)
--
viresh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists