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

[Dmitry Osipenko]

16.10.2019 17:58, Peter Geis ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:29 AM Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I doubt Google will care much, since Android has moved on to aarch64.
> Do they even support arm32 any more?

Yes, I don't think there is a real need to care about Google. They won't
use pure upstream and won't care about older hardware any ways.