On 23 July 2014 12:24, Thierry Reding [off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:14:44AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 21 July 2014 21:09, Tuomas Tynkkynen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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 ?

quoted

quoted

+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.