Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1365904 > unrolled thread

[PATCH V2 3/3] cpufreq: exynos: Use generic platdev driver

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH V2 3/3] cpufreq: exynos: Use generic platdev driver Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-03-29 08:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] cpufreq: exynos: Use generic platdev driver Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 17:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] cpufreq: exynos: Use generic platdev driver Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-03-29 17:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] cpufreq: exynos: Use generic platdev driver Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> - 2016-03-30 01:50 +0200

#1365904 — [PATCH V2 3/3] cpufreq: exynos: Use generic platdev driver

The cpufreq-dt-platdev driver supports creation of cpufreq-dt platform
device now, reuse that and remove similar code from platform code.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c        | 29 -----------------------------
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c |  9 +++++++++
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index bbf51a46f772..4d3b056fd786 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -213,33 +213,6 @@ static void __init exynos_init_irq(void)
 	exynos_map_pmu();
 }
 
-static const struct of_device_id exynos_cpufreq_matches[] = {
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos4212", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos4412", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-#ifndef CONFIG_BL_SWITCHER
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos5800", .data = "cpufreq-dt" },
-#endif
-	{ /* sentinel */ }
-};
-
-static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
-{
-	struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
-	const struct of_device_id *match;
-
-	match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root);
-	if (!match) {
-		platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
-		return;
-	}
-
-	platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0);
-}
-
 static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void)
 {
 	/*
@@ -262,8 +235,6 @@ static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void)
 	    of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5250"))
 		platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle);
 
-	exynos_cpufreq_init();
-
 	of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
 }
 
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
index 18b81724ca0b..c5a70b683c7c 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
@@ -20,6 +20,15 @@ struct cpufreq_dt_compat {
 };
 
 static struct cpufreq_dt_compat compat[] = {
+	{ "samsung,exynos3250",		NULL,		0 },
+	{ "samsung,exynos4210",		NULL,		0 },
+	{ "samsung,exynos4212",		NULL,		0 },
+	{ "samsung,exynos4412",		NULL,		0 },
+	{ "samsung,exynos5250",		NULL,		0 },
+#ifndef CONFIG_BL_SWITCHER
+	{ "samsung,exynos5420",		NULL,		0 },
+	{ "samsung,exynos5800",		NULL,		0 },
+#endif
 };
 
 static int __init cpufreq_dt_platdev_init(void)
-- 
2.7.1.410.g6faf27b

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1366368

On Tuesday 29 March 2016 12:09:49 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> -static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
> -{
> -       struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
> -       const struct of_device_id *match;
> -
> -       match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root);
> -       if (!match) {
> -               platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
> -               return;
> -       }
> -
> -       platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0);
> -}

How is the "exynos-cpufreq" case handled now? Is that no longer used now?
I assume the patch is correct based on Krzysztof's review, but it might be
good to explain this better.

	Arnd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1366388

On 29 March 2016 at 20:34, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 March 2016 12:09:49 Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> -static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
>> -{
>> -       struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>> -       const struct of_device_id *match;
>> -
>> -       match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root);
>> -       if (!match) {
>> -               platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
>> -               return;
>> -       }
>> -
>> -       platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0);
>> -}
>
> How is the "exynos-cpufreq" case handled now? Is that no longer used now?
> I assume the patch is correct based on Krzysztof's review, but it might be
> good to explain this better.

That's stale code, the driver got removed some time back.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1366813

On 30.03.2016 00:22, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29 March 2016 at 20:34, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 29 March 2016 12:09:49 Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> -static void __init exynos_cpufreq_init(void)
>>> -{
>>> -       struct device_node *root = of_find_node_by_path("/");
>>> -       const struct of_device_id *match;
>>> -
>>> -       match = of_match_node(exynos_cpufreq_matches, root);
>>> -       if (!match) {
>>> -               platform_device_register_simple("exynos-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
>>> -               return;
>>> -       }
>>> -
>>> -       platform_device_register_simple(match->data, -1, NULL, 0);
>>> -}
>>
>> How is the "exynos-cpufreq" case handled now? Is that no longer used now?
>> I assume the patch is correct based on Krzysztof's review, but it might be
>> good to explain this better.
> 
> That's stale code, the driver got removed some time back.

Yeah, that's old driver, no longer existing. It makes sense to split the
patch - first remove the stale exynos-cpufreq and then move cpufreq-dt.
This would help avoid confusion when grepping through the history.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web