2017-08-21 22:17 GMT+09:00 Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au>:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:07:27AM +0530, Viresh Kumar 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 <ge...@linux-m68k.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
>
> I have exercised this on the r8a7795 and r8a7795 with the following
> reverted:
>
> * 034def597bb7 ("cpufreq: rcar: Add support for R8A7795 SoC")
> * bea2ebca6b91 ("cpufreq: dt: Add r8a7796 support to to use generic
> cpufreq driver")
>
> Tested-by: Simon Horman <horms+rene...@verge.net.au>
Reviewed-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com>
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
