On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > The initial idea of creating the cpufreq-dt-platdev.c file was to keep a > list of platforms that use the "operating-points" (V1) bindings and > create cpufreq device for them only, as we weren't sure which platforms > would want the device to get created automatically as some had their own > cpufreq drivers as well, or wanted to initialize cpufreq after doing > some stuff from platform code. > > But that wasn't the case with platforms using "operating-points-v2" > property. We wanted the device to get created automatically without the > need of adding them to the whitelist. Though, we will still have some > exceptions where we don't want to create the device automatically. > > Rename the earlier platform list as *whitelist* and create a new > *blacklist* as well. > > The cpufreq-dt device will get created if: > - The platform is there in the whitelist OR > - The platform has "operating-points-v2" property in CPU0's DT node and > isn't part of the blacklist . > > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
Does this mean "cpufreq: dt: Add support for some new Allwinner SoCs", or any other patch adding new SoCs to the list, isn't needed anymore? ChenYu
