+Rob +Stephen,
On 14-12-18, 09:04, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:41 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 12-12-18, 14:18, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > + gpu_opp_table: opp-table {
> > > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
> >
> > I think you need to mention "operating-points-v2" as well here.
>
> Are you saying the above should be:
> compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level", "operating-points-v2";
>
> If so I'm not sure I agree.
Well I have my doubts as well on this. This is where the ordering was discussed
earlier:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/152328979897.180276.15963925877442657158@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
@Rob/Stephen: Should the opp-table node above also have "operating-points-v2"
string in the compatible property ?
> It's _not_ really compatible with the
> "operating-points-v2" binding. If you had a driver that had never
> heard of "operating-points-v2-qcom-level" and had only heard of
> "operating-points-v2" and it took a look at this node it would have no
> idea what to do with it.
Well it will parse everything apart from the qcom,level thing, so it can
actually parse stuff here.
> I'll also note that other instances posted to the list don't list both:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725801/ - RPM / RPMH PD bindings
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725793/ - RPMH PD device tree for sdm845
>
> The bindings patch also makes no mention of needing
> "operating-points-v2". I think the common case when a fallback is
> required it is explicitly called out in the bindings:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725803/ - qcom-opp bindings
Sure, maybe I am wrong but its better to get some clarity on it from Rob/Stephen.
--
viresh
