Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:40 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:09 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:49 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 18-12-18, 11:05, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > > OK, it's fine with me to have the fallback, but if we do we should be
> > > > consistent about it and make sure it's in all the bindings and device
> > > > tree files...
> > >
> > > Sure.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what's the right way to do it is, i.e. should we keep the
> > > "operating-points-v2" string or not.
> >
> > Does having it buy you anything? Given the QCom one doesn't have any
> > frequency or voltage, I don't see how it would be useful to have it.
>
> ...but it does have a frequency, doesn't it?
>
> + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
> +
> + opp-710000000 {
> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>;
> + qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1>;
> + };
Ah, I perhaps see the confusion. So Rajendra's usage of
"operating-points-v2-qcom-level" [1] doesn't have a frequency but
Jordan's do. So I guess it makes sense that Jordan's have the
fallback compatible but Rajendra's don't?
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725793/
-Doug
