Hello Diederik,
On 2024-06-30 17:43, Diederik de Haas wrote:
On Sunday, 30 June 2024 14:04:50 CEST Dragan Simic wrote:
> I also expected that (for v1) there would be a similar construct as was
> recently added for rk3588. But I should interpret Heiko's comments as
> that strategy should not be applied to rk356x?
The trouble with applying the same strategy, ...
One of the reasons I like/hoped for it is that I'm a 'sucker' for
consistency.
I also like consistency, but doing it that way simply wasn't feasible
in this case. Maybe I'll rework the RK3399 SoC dtsi files a bit, so
we'd end up with more overall consistency. :)
... the need for voltage ranges depends on one of the board features,
i.e. the GPU and NPU voltage regulators. As such, it still has to
affect the RK356x SoC dtsi, which may warrant separate
rk356x-gpu-range.dtsi, for example, but the troubles would arise ...
... but it's probably better if I (generally) abstain from taking part
in the discussion about the correct/desired implementation as I don't
understand the material in enough detail to meaningfully contribute.
I find your responses useful, so as far as I'm concerned, you're more
than welcome to take part in the discussions.
