From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932313AbaGWG6Y (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:58:24 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]:56077 "EHLO
	mail-oi0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932267AbaGWG6V (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:58:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140723065412.GA15759@ulmo.nvidia.com>
References: <1405957142-19416-1-git-send-email-ttynkkynen@nvidia.com>
	<1405957142-19416-15-git-send-email-ttynkkynen@nvidia.com>
	<CAKohpomQthJ_XE-HhzW07Q4aVtxQVy97iaL0Vy6Q4Lhw22A=VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140723065412.GA15759@ulmo.nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:28:21 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohponmg24pvnX2Jhfg5LHKKHx3VEm-6a_JXTGhVXY-aj3EOw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] cpufreq: Add cpufreq driver for Tegra124
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: Tuomas Tynkkynen <ttynkkynen@nvidia.com>,
        "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
        Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>,
        Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com>,
        Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Paul Walmsley <pwalmsley@nvidia.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.