From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 08:54:13 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 14/16] cpufreq: Add cpufreq driver for Tegra124 In-Reply-To: References: <1405957142-19416-1-git-send-email-ttynkkynen@nvidia.com> <1405957142-19416-15-git-send-email-ttynkkynen@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <20140723065412.GA15759@ulmo.nvidia.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:14:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 21 July 2014 21:09, Tuomas Tynkkynen wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm > > index 7364a53..df3c73e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm > > @@ -244,6 +244,7 @@ config ARM_SPEAR_CPUFREQ > > config ARM_TEGRA_CPUFREQ > > bool "TEGRA CPUFreq support" > > depends on ARCH_TEGRA > > + depends on GENERIC_CPUFREQ_CPU0 > > Wouldn't this also disturb the existing cpufreq driver for earlier > tegra platforms? i.e. we don't need cpufreq-cpu0 for them > atleast as of now. Perhaps this should be "select" rather than "depends on"? > > +static int tegra124_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + > > + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(0); > > + if (!cpu_dev) > > + return -ENODEV; > > + > > Shouldn't we do a of_node_get() here? I think this would need to be get_device() since it's the struct device that's being used subsequently. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: