Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: prefer SCMI cpufreq if supported | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:35:59 +0100 |
| |
On 18/04/18 16:56, Markus Mayer wrote: > From: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > > If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new > approach can be used. > > Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101024@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mmayer@broadcom.com> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > index b07559b9ed99..b4861a730162 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/brcmstb-avs-cpufreq.c > @@ -164,6 +164,8 @@ > #define BRCM_AVS_CPU_INTR "brcm,avs-cpu-l2-intr" > #define BRCM_AVS_HOST_INTR "sw_intr" > > +#define ARM_SCMI_COMPAT "arm,scmi" > + > struct pmap { > unsigned int mode; > unsigned int p1; > @@ -511,6 +513,20 @@ static int brcm_avs_prepare_init(struct platform_device *pdev) > struct device *dev; > int host_irq, ret; >
Will this platform have both SCMI and BRCM_AVS_CPU_DATA nodes enabled ? If so, is it not better to just keep only the preferred node enabled instead ?
> + /* > + * If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the more > + * modern approach can be used. > + */ > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL)) { > + struct device_node *np; > + > + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, ARM_SCMI_COMPAT); > + if (np) { > + of_node_put(np); > + return -ENXIO; > + } > + } > +
Clearly not a good approach.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |