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.