Re: [PATCH v1 07/17] cpufreq: tegra20: Use generic cpufreq-dt driver (Tegra30 supported now)

From: Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>,
	Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart@gmail.com>,
	Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 07/17] cpufreq: tegra20: Use generic cpufreq-dt driver (Tegra30 supported now)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 10:58:25 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMdYzYoasuEobJLC4RLW_5WCNGnaKtTth0xKov0tUQuDhkX3EA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13a9ebd6-8dce-0217-d306-defb8eb6fb96@gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:29 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 16.10.2019 08:18, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> > On 16-10-19, 00:16, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> Re-parenting to intermediate clock is supported now by the clock driver
> >> and thus there is no need in a customized CPUFreq driver, all that code
> >> is common for both Tegra20 and Tegra30. The available CPU freqs are now
> >> specified in device-tree in a form of OPPs, all users should update their
> >> device-trees.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm          |   4 +-
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c |   2 +
> >>  drivers/cpufreq/tegra20-cpufreq.c    | 236 ++++++---------------------
> >>  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> >> index a905796f7f85..2118c45d0acd 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> >> @@ -301,8 +301,8 @@ config ARM_TANGO_CPUFREQ
> >>      default y
> >>
> >>  config ARM_TEGRA20_CPUFREQ
> >> -    tristate "Tegra20 CPUFreq support"
> >> -    depends on ARCH_TEGRA
> >> +    bool "Tegra20 CPUFreq support"
> >
> > Google is currently working on the GKI (generic kernel image) project where they
> > want to use a single kernel image with modules for all kind of android devices.
> > And for that they need all such drivers to be built as module. Since this is
> > already an module, I would ask you to keep it as is instead of moving it to bool
> > here. Else some google guy will switch it back as module later on.
> >
> > LGTM otherwise. Nice work. Thanks.
> >
>
> Okay, I'll keep the modularity in v2.
>
> Although, tegra20-cpufreq isn't a driver anymore because now it merely
> prepares OPP table for the cpufreq-dt driver, which is really a one-shot
> action that is enough to do during boot and thus modularity is a bit
> redundant here.

I doubt Google will care much, since Android has moved on to aarch64.
Do they even support arm32 any more?