Messages in this thread |  | | From | Aaron Kling <> | | Date | Tue, 20 May 2025 10:38:53 -0500 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] cpufreq: tegra124: Allow building as a module |
| |
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 5:33 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 20-05-25, 10:57, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > On 19/05/2025 11:37, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 15-05-25, 07:41, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > > Yes and that is understood. I see a few drivers calling ... > > > > > > > > platform_device_register_simple("cpufreq-dt", -1, NULL, 0); > > > > > > > > One option, and I don't know if this would be acceptable, would be to add a > > > > new wrapper function in the cpufreq-dt driver for the above that other > > > > drivers could call and that would create the dependency you need. > > > > > > Doing that won't be a problem, but I doubt if that is a better than > > > adding a soft dependency here. I personally felt that the soft > > > dependency may be the right way here. The cpufreq-dt file presents a > > > driver, a device can be added from any file and that doesn't require > > > the driver file to be inserted first. If the platform wants to > > > simplify and create a dependency, a soft dependency looks okay. > > > > The only downside of a soft dependency is that this driver could load but if > > the cpufreq-dt driver is missing for whatever reason, it might not be > > obvious. Ideally it is better if this driver does not load at all if the > > cpufreq-dt is not present. > > Fair enough. > > Aaron, you can introduce a helper like cpufreq_dt_pdev_register() to > solve the linking here.
Will do. I'll get it queued for when patch 1 is actionable.
Aaron
|  |