On 2024-12-27 14:48, Dragan Simic wrote:
Hello Jagan,
Please see a comment below.
On 2024-12-27 14:34, Jagan Teki wrote:
Rockchip RK3588M is the automotive-grade version of RK3588 SoC and
is operated with -40 °C to +85 °C temparature.
Add rk3588m specific dtsi for adding rk3588m specific operating points
and other changes to be add in future.
Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588m.dtsi | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588m.dtsi
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588m.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588m.dtsi
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..0bbeee399a63
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588m.dtsi
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2022 Rockchip Electronics Co., Ltd.
+ *
+ */
+
+#include "rk3588-extra.dtsi"
I don't think we need or want a separate rk3588m.dtsi file for this
purpose, unless the RK3588M variant actually differs from the regular
RK3588 variant from the software standpoint. The latter is already
described in rk3588.dtsi, so it should just be included in the new
board dts(i) file.
Actually, after having a look at the downstream code, it seems that
the RK3588J and RK3588M variants share the same OPPs, so actually
rk3588j.dtsi should be used for the RK3588M variant. Could you,
please, confirm this?
Alas, it seems we've got some serious issues in the OPPs currently
defined in rk3588j.dtsi, which I'll double check to make sure I'm not
going crazy, :) and submit a patch that fixes those OPPs.
If you could confirm the RK3588M == RK3588J assumption above, I can
add some additional clarification to the rk3588j.dtsi file in the
above-mentioned fixes.
