Ccc'ing Grant and Rob as well.Actually, I don't have plan or resource on doing this, would it be better that you help to do that instead? Thanks.
On 20 December 2013 21:59, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:No, I definitely don't agree here. The rules for arch/arm64 are: no
platform-specific code. We should immediately start planning for that.
If this means renaming the file that creates the virtual device from
tegra-cpufreq.c to something else, so be it, but we shouldn't go
backwards and push stuff into the arch directories.
I don't mind doing this now as well if it is generic enough. I wasn't sure
if you guys wanted to take it on now..
@Bill: So, please create a separate commit for creating such file which
would create a virtual device for probing cpufreq drivers with name picked
from root-node. Compilation of such a file should be configurable but if
it is compiled, then it shouldn't cause any problems if that device isn't
used, for multiplatform kernels specially..
Probably then you can widen the scope of your patchset by modifying
some of the existing drivers which require a device to get cpufreq
driver probed. Currently they are all making such a device from
their arch/ stuff.
Do we have consensus on where to create such file?
I am not sure about the location of such file. Should this be placed in DT
code somewhere or kept in cpufreq? Rob/Grant ??