Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add gpu and gmu device nodes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux