From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Zhao Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Add a generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:04:34 +0800 Message-ID: <20120727020433.GA3347@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> References: <1342713281-31114-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1342713281-31114-4-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20120720123317.GA32263@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120721063811.GA619@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120721063811.GA619@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: "Shilimkar, Santosh" , "Turquette, Mike" , Kevin Hilman , Nishanth Menon , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:38:13PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:34:29AM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: > > > How about cpufreq-single-thread.c and CONFIG_CPUFREQ_SINGLE_THREAD? > > > That makes sense for both UP and SMP. > > > > > Indeed. This sounds more appropriate and also reflects what actually happens > > with a UP or shared clock SMP case. > > > While I agree with this observation, the suggested naming does not > reflect the rationale of CPU0 though, which is really important for > driver to work, and is exactly the thing I like about *_CPU0 naming. > > The driver needs the following stuff around CPU0 to be functional. > > - Device tree node /cpus/cpu@0 > - clk lookup with dev_id being "cpu0" > - regulator with id being "cpu0" > > I think the *_CPU0 naming does a better job on emphasising those in the > first place. Are we going to support the case in the future that cores has independent freq? If yes, maybe we should have a more common name. Thanks Richard > > -- > Regards, > Shawn From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: richard.zhao@freescale.com (Richard Zhao) Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:04:34 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] cpufreq: Add a generic cpufreq-cpu0 driver In-Reply-To: <20120721063811.GA619@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> References: <1342713281-31114-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1342713281-31114-4-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20120720123317.GA32263@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> <20120721063811.GA619@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Message-ID: <20120727020433.GA3347@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:38:13PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:34:29AM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: > > > How about cpufreq-single-thread.c and CONFIG_CPUFREQ_SINGLE_THREAD? > > > That makes sense for both UP and SMP. > > > > > Indeed. This sounds more appropriate and also reflects what actually happens > > with a UP or shared clock SMP case. > > > While I agree with this observation, the suggested naming does not > reflect the rationale of CPU0 though, which is really important for > driver to work, and is exactly the thing I like about *_CPU0 naming. > > The driver needs the following stuff around CPU0 to be functional. > > - Device tree node /cpus/cpu at 0 > - clk lookup with dev_id being "cpu0" > - regulator with id being "cpu0" > > I think the *_CPU0 naming does a better job on emphasising those in the > first place. Are we going to support the case in the future that cores has independent freq? If yes, maybe we should have a more common name. Thanks Richard > > -- > Regards, > Shawn