On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 09:42:32AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 02/10/24 08:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto: > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:21:35AM +0800, Pablo Sun wrote: > > > mt8188 has the same GPU speed binning efuse field just > > > like mt8186, which requires post-processing to convert to the > > > bit field format specified by OPP table. What about all the other efuses? The fallback needs to be a subset of the 1st compatible. > > > > > > Add the binding for the compatible list: > > > "mediatek,mt8188-efuse", "mediatek,mt8186-efuse" > > > so mt8188 uses the same conversion. > > > > > > Suggested-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Pablo Sun <pablo.sun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml | 4 ++++ > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml > > > index 32b8c1eb4e80..70815a3329bf 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/mediatek,efuse.yaml > > > @@ -39,6 +39,10 @@ properties: > > > - mediatek,mt8195-efuse > > > - mediatek,mt8516-efuse > > > - const: mediatek,efuse > > > + - items: > > > + - enum: > > > + - mediatek,mt8188-efuse > > > + - const: mediatek,mt8186-efuse > > > > And this is not compatible with generic one? This is confusing. Why are > > you adding generic fallbacks if they are not valid? > > > > It was my suggestion to start dropping the usage of the generic "mediatek,efuse" > fallback, as I've seen multiple times feedback saying to not use generic fallbacks. > > Was that wrong? No, but any fallback seems seems a bit odd here. It's one of those things that's going to change with every chip. Rob
