On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:40 PM Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
Is having it useful to s/w that doesn't understand
"operating-points-v2-qcom-level"? If so, then add
"operating-points-v2". If not, then don't.
I don't really care either way. Just don't do both ways and document
which way is correct.
Rob
