Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 20 Apr 2018 10:12:59 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: brcmstb-avs-cpufreq: prefer SCMI cpufreq if supported |
| |
On 19-04-18, 11:37, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 19/04/18 05:16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 18-04-18, 08:56, 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; > >> > >> + /* > >> + * 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; > >> + } > >> + } > >> + > > > > What about adding !CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL in Kconfig dependency and don't > > compile the driver at all ? > > > > Unfortunately, that may not be good idea with single image needing both > configs to be enabled.
Sure, but looking at the above code, it looked like they don't need the other config if SCMI is enabled.
-- viresh
| |