Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] cpufreq: Add cpufreq driver for Tegra124

[Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>]

On 23 July 2014 12:24, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:14:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 21 July 2014 21:09, Tuomas Tynkkynen <ttynkkynen@nvidia.com> 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"?

Don't know, its not optionaly for tegra124 and so a "depends on"
might fit better ?

>> > +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.

Probably I didn't write it well..

What I meant was after doing a get_cpu_device() we might also need
to do  of_node_get(cpu_dev->of_node) as we would be using of_node
in further code.