Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ARM: OMAP3+: use cpu0-cpufreq driver in device tree supported boot

From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc: "Rajendra Nayak" <rnayak@ti.com>,
	"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@linaro.org>,
	linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robherring2@gmail.com>,
	cpufreq@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul@pwsan.com>,
	"Benoît Cousson" <b-cousson@ti.com>,
	"Jon Hunter" <jon-hunter@ti.com>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>,
	"Santosh Shilimkar" <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
	"Shawn Guo" <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] ARM: OMAP3+: use cpu0-cpufreq driver in device tree supported boot
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 14:40:51 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130405214051.GG10155@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130405213250.GA8534@kahuna>

* Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [130405 14:37]:
> On 14:10-20130405, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> [130405 13:06]:
> > > On 12:28-20130405, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> [...]
> > > > How about just set it up in omap2_common_pm_init instead
> > > > of the board-generic?
> > > umm.. We want to eventually want to get rid of mach-omap2/pm.c (all
> > > those create processor devices etc should go away with proper
> > > representation of devices as nodes in DT if possible.
> > > But, I think you mean something like in the "else" condition of
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2359711/ ? - I'd again have the same
> > > request of not having anything to do with pm.c and keeping as little as
> > > possible for all TI processors in mach-omap2.
> > > 
> > > Could you enlighten me about why you'd not like it in board-generic.c?
> > > will creating an function ti_generic_cpufreq_init() in board-generic.c
> > > and calling it from omap_generic_init help?
> > 
> > I'd like to keep board-generic.c down to minimum. Can't you
> > set it up in omap_init_cpufreq() in your second patch of this
> > series?
> Thanks. That seems to be a better compromise. Will do. I can sequence patch
> [2] above the current patch[1] if there is a need to fix multi-arch builds
> for 3.9: in that case I will probably leave the current [2] patch as
> is, and once our clock representation discussion is done, the rev 4 of
> the patch [1], I can do the following:

OK makes sense to me.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c
> index 8d15f9a..b250689 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c
> @@ -267,8 +267,14 @@ static void __init omap4_init_voltages(void)
>  
>  static inline void omap_init_cpufreq(void)
>  {
> -	struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "omap-cpufreq", };
> -	platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
> +	struct platform_device_info devinfo = { .name = "omap-cpufreq", }
> +
> +	if (!of_have_populated_dt()) {
> +		platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
> +	} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_GENERIC_CPUFREQ_CPU0)) {
> +		devinfo.name = "cpufreq-cpu0"
> +		platform_device_register_full(&devinfo);
> +	}
>  }

Maybe move platform_device_register_full(&devinfo) out of
the if else as the different naming needed is the only
difference?

Regards,

Tony