On 18-10-16, 17:35, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On 15-10-16, 21:57, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
quoted
For device-tree based pxa25x and pxa27x platforms, cpufreq-dt driver is
doing the job as well as pxa2xx-cpufreq, so add these platforms to the
compatibility list.
This won't work for legacy non device-tree platforms where
pxa2xx-cpufreq is still required.
Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
---
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
index 0bb44d5b5df4..356825b5c9b8 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
@@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id machines[] __initconst = {
{ .compatible = "fsl,imx7d", },
{ .compatible = "marvell,berlin", },
+ { .compatible = "marvell,pxa250", },
+ { .compatible = "marvell,pxa270", },
{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250", },
{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", },
Isn't there a race between cpufreq-dt and the platform driver to
register first ?
Ah, could you be more specific about the race you're talking of ?
My understanding was that cpufreq-dt-platdev does create the device, and
cpufreq-dt is a driver for it, so there is no race but a direct relationship
AFAIU.
I mean that both the driver may try to register to the cpufreq core if
they are both compiled in a single image.
--
viresh