On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:12:36AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 05:01:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
I would really have expected static data from a function marked init to end up marked appropriately, but whatever.
I would not expect that.
Really? If something is local to a function marked init it seems like the __init ought to carry over to it.
rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len);
It's already standard in the spec we claim to be following...
So is it required ?
That's what ePAPR says. If that's good decision making on the part of ePAPR or not is a separate question.
I was just referring to this thread, whose outcome is unclear to me.
http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20131206.115707.24b095f4.en.h...
I am not questioning why it is needed, I am just asking whether it is optional or not. If it is, getting error messages in the kernel log does not seem correct.
At present we don't really have a better way to get the information so we're relying on it; until the scheduler is able to talk to cpufreq not providing this information means we won't be able to provide a relative performance estimate to the scheduler. This means that we probably ought to be telling the user if we couldn't figure out the top frequency for the core.