On 18/04/18 16:56, Markus Mayer wrote:
> From: Jim Quinlan <jim2101...@gmail.com>
>
> If the SCMI cpufreq driver is supported, we bail, so that the new
> approach can be used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Quinlan <jim2101...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Markus Mayer <mma...@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;
>
Will this platform have both SCMI and BRCM_AVS_CPU_DATA nodes enabled ?
If so, is it not better to just keep only the preferred node enabled
instead ?
> + /*
> + * 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;
> + }
> + }
> +
Clearly not a good approach.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
