[PATCH 5/5] ARM: vexpress/TC2: register vexpress-spc cpufreq device

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:

Hi Nico,

On 18/10/13 19:58, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:

quoted

From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <redacted>

This patch adds vexpress-spc platform device to enables the vexpress
SPC cpufreq interface driver.

Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <redacted>
Cc: Pawel Moll <redacted>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
index a8b8310..4ddfbfe 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c

@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
 #include <linux/interrupt.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/opp.h>
+#include <linux/platform_device.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
 #include <linux/semaphore.h>
 

@@ -532,6 +533,7 @@ static int __init ve_spc_clk_init(void)
 			pr_warn("failed to initialise cpu%d opp table\n", cpu);
 	}
 
+	platform_device_register_simple("vexpress-spc-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
 	return 0;
 }
 module_init(ve_spc_clk_init);

OK... this solves my concern about initcall ordering.  Please just 
disregard my suggestions on patch #3.  I'd suggest folding this patch 
into patch 3/5 though.

Thanks for the review. All the comments provided in other patches are fixed.
Since this would not cause any ordering issue, do you still think it needs to be
folded in PATCH 3/5. One concern I have with that is we will be adding device
first and then the driver. Either I will have to reorder patch 3 and 4 after
folding this patch or leave it as it is now.

It doesn't matter if you introduce the device before the driver.  It is 
just that this patch on its own seemed a bit thin.

In any case this is not very important and doesn't justify another post.



Nicolas