Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] ARM: Exynos: switch to using generic cpufreq driver for Exynos4x12

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

Hi,

On Monday, August 03, 2015 08:15:13 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> W dniu 03.08.2015 o 19:36, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz pisze:
> > On Monday, August 03, 2015 03:59:26 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> On 03-08-15, 12:17, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Saturday, August 01, 2015 04:47:21 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>>> On 31-07-15, 20:49, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>>>> 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).
> >>>
> >>>> 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?
> 
> I agree, with your explanation it seems good. Can you just add this
> justification to the commit message?

Updated patch below (I'm not resending the whole series as all other
patches remain unchanged).

> > 
> >> 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).
> 
> That would be the best. It is fine with me if you want to do this in
> consecutive patches (after applying patch selecting/depending on it in
> mach-exynos code).

---------------------8<-------------------