Re: [PATCH v1 07/17] cpufreq: tegra20: Use generic cpufreq-dt driver (Tegra30 supported now)

[Dmitry Osipenko]

16.10.2019 08:18, Viresh Kumar ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On 16-10-19, 00:16, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> Re-parenting to intermediate clock is supported now by the clock driver
>> and thus there is no need in a customized CPUFreq driver, all that code
>> is common for both Tegra20 and Tegra30. The available CPU freqs are now
>> specified in device-tree in a form of OPPs, all users should update their
>> device-trees.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm          |   4 +-
>>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c |   2 +
>>  drivers/cpufreq/tegra20-cpufreq.c    | 236 ++++++---------------------
>>  3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 187 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>> index a905796f7f85..2118c45d0acd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>> @@ -301,8 +301,8 @@ config ARM_TANGO_CPUFREQ
>>  	default y
>>  
>>  config ARM_TEGRA20_CPUFREQ
>> -	tristate "Tegra20 CPUFreq support"
>> -	depends on ARCH_TEGRA
>> +	bool "Tegra20 CPUFreq support"
> 
> Google is currently working on the GKI (generic kernel image) project where they
> want to use a single kernel image with modules for all kind of android devices.
> And for that they need all such drivers to be built as module. Since this is
> already an module, I would ask you to keep it as is instead of moving it to bool
> here. Else some google guy will switch it back as module later on.
> 
> LGTM otherwise. Nice work. Thanks.
> 

Okay, I'll keep the modularity in v2.

Although, tegra20-cpufreq isn't a driver anymore because now it merely
prepares OPP table for the cpufreq-dt driver, which is really a one-shot
action that is enough to do during boot and thus modularity is a bit
redundant here.