[PATCH RFC] Add cpufreq support

[Mason]

On 08/02/2016 14:45, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> That's why I said we could introduce a 'v3' with the meaning
> it should have had to start with: compatible means actually
> compatible with the driver.

If I understand correctly, something needs to change in the
framework before I can push cpufreq support for my platform
upstream, correct?

Could you CC me if anything happens on that front?

In my local 4.4 branch, I think I should use whatever method
was recommended at the time.

Was that to define the platform's init_late method, and call
platform_device_register_simple from there? (Could you take
a quick glance at the patch, and see if it is acceptable in
the context of kernel 4.4?)

Regards.