On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 03:04:45PM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:

On Wednesday 28 September 2011 05:56 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:09:30AM +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote:

quoted

On 9/27/2011 8:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

I'm not sure how this should work in a device tree world, I'd *hope*
we'd get a device tree node for the CPU and could then just make this a
regular consumer thing but then the cpufreq drivers would need to be
updated to make use of it.  The only reason we allow null devices right
now is the fact that cpufreq doesn't have a struct device it can use.

quoted

That's why we do have a MPU node in OMAP dts, in order to build an
omap_device that will be mainly used for the DVFS on the MPU.

quoted

And even before DT migration, we used to build statically some
omap_device to represent the various processors in the system (MPU,
DSP, CortexM3...).

Yeah, but that's very OMAP specific - we don't have that in general (in
fact it's the only Linux platform I'm aware of that has a device for the
CPU).

But isn't this the right thing to do for everyone else too?

It is normal to have nodes for each CPU.  The /cpus/ node normally
contains cpu@* nodes for each logical cpu core, and I would expect
nodes for each additional DSP and MPU core.  Whether or not they
belong in the /cpus/ node is a matter of design (we don't have any
patterns for that yet).

g.