On 12/03/2014 09:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 03 December 2014 07:31:22 Lina Iyer wrote:
+static int __init qcom_spm_init(void)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ /*
+ * cpuidle driver need to registered before the cpuidle device
+ * for any cpu. Register the device for the the cpuidle driver.
+ */
+ ret = platform_device_register(&qcom_cpuidle_drv);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
Stephen pointed out that we would have the platform device lying around
on a non-QCOM device when using multi_v7_defconfig.
Perhaps I am missing the point, but this is not supposed to happen, no ?
This would happen, since the file would compile on multi_v7 and we would
initialize and register this device regardless. The cpuidle-qcom.c
driver probe would bail out looking for a matching compatible property.
So we would not register a cpuidle driver but the device would lay
around.
I think the problem is registering a platform_device. I've complained
about this before, but it still seems to get copied all over the
place. Please don't do this but have a driver that looks at DT to
figure out whether to access hardware or not.
We did this approach but, I can remember why, someone was complaining
about it also :)
The platform device/driver paradigm allowed us to split the arch
specific parts by passing the pm ops through the platform data.
Would make sense to have a single common place for the ARM arch where we
initialize the platform device for cpuidle ?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
