On Monday, August 03, 2015 03:59:26 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:

On 03-08-15, 12:17, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Saturday, August 01, 2015 04:47:21 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:

quoted

On 31-07-15, 20:49, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
index 659879a..bf6d596 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig

@@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ config CPUFREQ_DT
 	# if CPU_THERMAL is on and THERMAL=m, CPUFREQ_DT cannot be =y:
 	depends on !CPU_THERMAL || THERMAL
 	select PM_OPP
+	select EXYNOS_THERMAL if ARCH_EXYNOS
 	help
 	  This adds a generic DT based cpufreq driver for frequency management.
 	  It supports both uniprocessor (UP) and symmetric multiprocessor (SMP)

No, we shouldn't pollute generic Kconfig options with platform specific stuff.

The old code depended on this.  You couldn't enable boost support
without enabling thermal support (ARM_EXYNOS_CPU_FREQ_BOOST_SW
config option selected EXYNOS_THERMAL).

quoted

Why don't you enable thermal in your .config?

It is enabled in exynos_defconfig but without the above change it
can disabled manually which is something that we don't want.

You are not getting it. I am not asking you to not select thermal, but
to select it from within your architecture Kconfig option if you want.

OK.  Krzysztof/Kukjin do you agree with selecting EXYNOS_THERMAL
from ARCH_EXYNOS in the platform code?

Over that, thermal is really an option, not a dependency. So, if
someone manually disables it, its his problem not yours :)

I would really like it to be dependency not an option (+ I think
that ideally it should be checked at runtime, IOW we should be
checking from cpufreq-dt driver if the thermal support is enabled
before enabling boost support).

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics