On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 08:30:59AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/10/2024 07:59, Imran Shaik wrote: > > > > > > On 10/29/2024 3:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 29/10/2024 10:23, Imran Shaik wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/28/2024 12:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>> On 28/10/2024 06:15, Imran Shaik wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 10/26/2024 5:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 07:01:14PM +0530, Imran Shaik wrote: > >>>>>>> The QCS8300 GPU clock controller is mostly identical to SA8775P, but > >>>>>>> QCS8300 has few additional clocks and minor differences. Hence, reuse > >>>>>>> SA8775P gpucc bindings and add additional clocks required for QCS8300. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IIUC, these clocks are not valid for SA8775p. How do we deal with such > >>>>>> cases for other Qualcomm SoCs? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> These newly added clocks are not applicable to SA8755P. In the > >>>>> gpucc-sa8775p driver, these clocks are marked to NULL for the SA8755P, > >>>>> ensuring they are not registered to the CCF. > >>>> > >>>> I meant bindings. And existing practice. > >>>> > >>> > >>> In the bindings, the same approach is followed in other Qualcomm SoCs as > >>> well, where additional clocks are added to the existing identical SoC’s > >>> bindings. > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240818204348.197788-2-danila@xxxxxxxxxxx > >> > >> Exactly, defines are very different, so no, it is not the same approach. > >> > > > > I believe the QCS8300 approach is same as that of SM8475. In the SM8475 > > SoC, GPLL2 and GPLL3 are the additional clock bindings compared to the > > SM8450. Similarly, in the QCS8300, the GPU_CC_*_ACCU_SHIFT_CLK clock > > bindings are additional to the SA8775P. > > > > We are also following this approach across all SoCs in the downstream > > msm-kernel as well. > > > > Please let me know if I am missing anything here. > > Not sure, please take the same approach as SM8475, not a different one. Just for my understanding, are you proposing to prefix the platform-specific defines with platform name (like it was done for SM8475)? -- With best wishes Dmitry
