From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] cpufreq: tegra124-cpufreq: extend to support Tegra210 Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:25:04 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1517934852-23255-1-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> <1517934852-23255-10-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1517934852-23255-10-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter De Schrijver , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/02/18 16:34, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > Tegra210 has a very similar CPU clocking scheme than Tegra124. So add > support in this driver. Also allow for the case where the CPU voltage is > controlled directly by the DFLL rather than by a separate regulator object. > > Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver > --- > drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c | 15 ++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c > index 4353025..f8e01a8 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c > @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ static void tegra124_cpu_switch_to_pllx(struct tegra124_cpufreq_priv *priv) > { > clk_set_parent(priv->cpu_clk, priv->pllp_clk); > clk_disable_unprepare(priv->dfll_clk); > - regulator_sync_voltage(priv->vdd_cpu_reg); > + if (priv->vdd_cpu_reg) > + regulator_sync_voltage(priv->vdd_cpu_reg); > clk_set_parent(priv->cpu_clk, priv->pllx_clk); > } > > @@ -89,10 +90,10 @@ static int tegra124_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > return -ENODEV; > > priv->vdd_cpu_reg = regulator_get(cpu_dev, "vdd-cpu"); > - if (IS_ERR(priv->vdd_cpu_reg)) { > - ret = PTR_ERR(priv->vdd_cpu_reg); > - goto out_put_np; > - } > + if (IS_ERR(priv->vdd_cpu_reg) != -EPROBE_DEFER) > + priv->vdd_cpu_reg = NULL; > + else > + return -EPROBE_DEFER; I am still not sure that we should rely on the fact that the regulator is not present in DT to imply that we do not need it. I think that we should be checking if we are using I2C mode here. Cheers Jon -- nvpublic