On 17-02-21, 10:19, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16-02-21, 16:42, Vinod Koul wrote: > > Add the CPUfreq compatible for SM8350 SoC along with note for using the > > specific compatible for SoCs > > > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt | 4 +++- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt > > index 9299028ee712..3eb3cee59d79 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt > > @@ -8,7 +8,9 @@ Properties: > > - compatible > > Usage: required > > Value type: <string> > > - Definition: must be "qcom,cpufreq-hw" or "qcom,cpufreq-epss". > > + Definition: must be "qcom,cpufreq-hw" or "qcom,cpufreq-epss" > > + along with SoC specific compatible: > > + "qcom,sm8350-cpufreq-epss", "qcom,cpufreq-epss" > > And why is SoC specific compatible required here ? Is the implementation on > sm8350 any different than the ones using "qcom,cpufreq-epss" compatible ? > > FWIW, the same compatible string must be reused until the time there is > difference in the hardware. The compatible string must be considered as a marker > for a particular version of the hardware. Rob has indicated that we should use a SoC specific compatible and I agree with that. We are using both soc and generic one here and driver will be loaded for generic one. Thanks -- ~Vinod
