On 15:28-20130312, Benoit Cousson wrote: > On 03/12/2013 06:07 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 March 2013 04:35 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >> commit 5553f9e (cpufreq: instantiate cpufreq-cpu0 as a platform_driver) > >> now forces platform device to be registered for allowing cpufreq-cpu0 > >> to be used by SoCs. example: drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c > >> > >> However, for SoCs that wish to link up using device tree, instead > >> of platform device, provide compatibility string match: > >> compatible = "cpufreq,cpu0"; > > You cannot add a non-HW relative binding... DT is supposed to represent > the pure HW. > AFAIK, cpufreq has nothing to do with the HW definition. Ref: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/cpufreq/highbank-cpufreq.c#n61 there is a need for a device of some sort. in the example above, we register a dummy device for linking up with cpufreq-cpu0 driver. what we do in this patch is to indicate that SoC CPUs are managed by cpufreq-cpu0 driver.
I am a bit curious to see how else would we represent drivers to manage real h/w devices like CPU? Is the highbank style the recommended way to do things? > > >> > >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Shawn Guo <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> .../devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt | 3 +++ > >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 6 ++++++ > >> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > >> > > Looks fine to me. CC'ing dt list in case some one has > > comments on binding updates. > > > > Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]> > > Not-Acked-by-me. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
