On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:50:13PM +0100, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> Hi Thierry,
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:47:33PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> > > Tested-by: Mikko Perttunen <mikko.perttunen-/1wQRMveznE@public.gmane.org>
> > > 
> > > One potential issue I can see is that if the cpufreq driver fails
> > > to probe then you'll never get the thermal driver either. For
> > > example, Tegra124 currently has no cpufreq driver, so if
> > > CONFIG_CPU_THERMAL was enabled, then the soctherm driver would
> > > never be able to probe. But I don't really have a solution for this
> > > either.
> > 
> > It doesn't seem like there's any code whatsoever to deal with cpufreq
> > within the soctherm driver, so deferring probe based on something
> > we're not using anyway seems rather useless.
> 
> So, If I understood you correctly - this patch is not needed in the 
> /tegra_soctherm.c:[tegra_defconfig] driver and can be safely omitted in
> v2 of this driver.

What I'm saying is that I don't think doing this mass conversion
wholesale is useful since none of the drivers register a cooling device
based on cpufreq. In other words: if you're not going to use a feature
there's no use testing for it.

Thierry