[PATCH 5/5] ARM: vexpress/TC2: register vexpress-spc cpufreq device

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:

> Hi Nico,
> 
> On 18/10/13 19:58, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha at arm.com>
> >>
> >> This patch adds vexpress-spc platform device to enables the vexpress
> >> SPC cpufreq interface driver.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha at arm.com>
> >> Cc: Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll at arm.com>
> >> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c | 2 ++
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
> >> index a8b8310..4ddfbfe 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c
> >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >>  #include <linux/io.h>
> >>  #include <linux/opp.h>
> >> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >>  #include <linux/slab.h>
> >>  #include <linux/semaphore.h>
> >>  
> >> @@ -532,6 +533,7 @@ static int __init ve_spc_clk_init(void)
> >>  			pr_warn("failed to initialise cpu%d opp table\n", cpu);
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> +	platform_device_register_simple("vexpress-spc-cpufreq", -1, NULL, 0);
> >>  	return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  module_init(ve_spc_clk_init);
> > 
> > OK... this solves my concern about initcall ordering.  Please just 
> > disregard my suggestions on patch #3.  I'd suggest folding this patch 
> > into patch 3/5 though.
> >
> Thanks for the review. All the comments provided in other patches are fixed.
> Since this would not cause any ordering issue, do you still think it needs to be
> folded in PATCH 3/5. One concern I have with that is we will be adding device
> first and then the driver. Either I will have to reorder patch 3 and 4 after
> folding this patch or leave it as it is now.

It doesn't matter if you introduce the device before the driver.  It is 
just that this patch on its own seemed a bit thin.

In any case this is not very important and doesn't justify another post.



Nicolas