On 23-04-16, 00:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 21 April 2016 14:29:02 Viresh Kumar wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/pmsu.c b/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/pmsu.c index 79d0a5d9da8e..f24f46776fbb 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/pmsu.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/pmsu.c @@ -685,8 +685,6 @@ static int __init armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init(void) dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: failed to mark OPPs as shared: %d\n", __func__, ret); }
platform_device_register_simple("cpufreq-dt", -1, NULL, 0); return 0;} diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c index 69b2a222c84e..5704a92c52dc 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id machines[] = { { .compatible = "marvell,berlin", },
{ .compatible = "marvell,armadaxp", },{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250", }, { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", }, { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4212", },I think to make it clear that the ordering is significant here, I would leave this platform_device_register_simple() in armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init().
However, it might be helpful to move that function into a new file in drivers/cpufreq/ if that works.
We just can't get wrong with the ordering here, as this is done from device_initcall() and so that point is out of question.
The other thing that can happen is that armada_xp_pmsu_cpufreq_init() call can fail. In that case, most of the times cpufreq-dt ->init() will fail as well, so even that is fine for me.
And, so I think we can keep this patch as is.
Do you agree ?