On 22/10/2024 08:34, Imran Shaik wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/2024 8:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/10/2024 12:56, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> { }
>>>>> };
>>>>> @@ -596,6 +635,14 @@ static int gpu_cc_sa8775p_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>> if (IS_ERR(regmap))
>>>>> return PTR_ERR(regmap);
>>>>>
>>>>> + if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,qcs8300-gpucc")) {
>>>>
>>>> Why we cannot use match data? Seeing compatibles in the code is
>>>> unexpected and does not scale.
>>>
>>> Because using match data doesn't scale in such cases. We have been using
>>
>> I don't understand how it could not scale. That's the entire point of
>> match data - scaling.
>>
>>> compatibles to patch clock trees for the platforms for quite a while.
>>> You can see that each of the "tunings" is slightly different. From my
>>
>>
>> You have one driver, where are these tunings which are supposed to be
>> different? You need here only enum or define, in the simplest choice.
>>
>>> point of view, this approach provides a nice balance between having a
>>> completely duplicate driver and having a driver which self-patches the
>>> tree.
>>
>> How duplicate driver got into this? I don't think we talk about the
>> same. I meant ID table match data.
>>>
>
> I agree with Dmitry. If I understand correctly, to add match data
> support, we need to define the gpu_cc_qcs8300_clocks struct by
> duplicating the entries from gpu_cc_sa8775p_clocks and then adding the
> additional qcs8300 clocks. The compatible approach is simpler and used
> across most existing platforms.
>
You don't have to define any structs. You pass enum and retrieve it...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
