On 31/12/2023 15:48, Luca Weiss wrote:
> It doesn't appear that the configuration is for the HFPLL is generic, so
That's ok...
> add a qcs404-specific compatible and rename the existing struct to
but why this is the solution? If the qcom,hfpll compatible was
deprecated, but it is not. This commit is contradictory to the bindings.
> qcs404.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c
> index dac27e31ef60..5b12982519be 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/hfpll.c
> @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
> #include "clk-regmap.h"
> #include "clk-hfpll.h"
>
> -static const struct hfpll_data hdata = {
> +static const struct hfpll_data qcs404 = {
> .mode_reg = 0x00,
> .l_reg = 0x04,
> .m_reg = 0x08,
> @@ -84,10 +84,12 @@ static const struct hfpll_data msm8976_cci = {
> };
>
> static const struct of_device_id qcom_hfpll_match_table[] = {
> - { .compatible = "qcom,hfpll", .data = &hdata },
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8976-hfpll-a53", .data = &msm8976_a53 },
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8976-hfpll-a72", .data = &msm8976_a72 },
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8976-hfpll-cci", .data = &msm8976_cci },
> + { .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-hfpll", .data = &qcs404 },
> + /* deprecated, use SoC-specific compatible */
Why? That's not a deprecated compatible. You now expect to create many
unnecessary entries, which is not really needed. This is opposite of
what we try to achieve with compatibility lists.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
