linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] cpufreq: tegra20: Wrap cpufreq into platform 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]

Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 11:09:37 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 10/11] cpufreq: tegra20: Wrap cpufreq into platform
 driver

On 18.05.2018 05:07, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-05-18, 21:00, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> -static int __init tegra_cpufreq_init(void)
>> +static int tegra20_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  {
>> +	struct tegra20_cpufreq_data *data;
>>  	int err;
>>  
>> -	if (!of_machine_is_compatible("nvidia,tegra20"))
>> -		return -ENODEV;
> 
> So this stuff wasn't really required as you are getting rid of that in
> the same series. Should we really add it then ? Maybe ..
> 

It's not strictly needed, but I'd prefer to keep that stuff for clarity as it
kinda shows the way that led to the final result.

[snip]