On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 at 16:23, Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/02/2022 20:27, alyssa.rosenzweig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From the kernel's perspective, pre-CSF Valhall is more or less > > compatible with Bifrost, although they differ to userspace. Add a > > compatible for Valhall to the existing Bifrost bindings documentation. > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-bifrost.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-bifrost.yaml > > index 63a08f3f321d..48aeabd2ed68 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-bifrost.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-bifrost.yaml > > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties: > > - rockchip,px30-mali > > - rockchip,rk3568-mali > > - const: arm,mali-bifrost # Mali Bifrost GPU model/revision is fully discoverable > > + - const: arm,mali-valhall # Mali Valhall GPU model/revision is fully discoverable > > It might be worth spelling out here that this is *pre-CSF* Valhall. I'm > pretty sure we're going to need different bindings for CSF GPUs. Good point - maybe either make it arm,mali-valhall-jm then? Cheers, Daniel
