Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2022-01-25 19:01:31)
> On Tue 25 Jan 15:46 PST 2022, Doug Anderson wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:58 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2022-01-25 14:44:22)
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..f95273052da0
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-herobrine-herobrine-r1.dts
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,313 @@
> > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT)
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Google Herobrine board device tree source
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Copyright 2022 Google LLC.
> > > > + */
> > > > +
> > > > +/dts-v1/;
> > > > +
> > > > +#include "sc7280-herobrine.dtsi"
> > > > +
> > > > +/ {
> > > > + model = "Google Herobrine (rev1+)";
> > > > + compatible = "google,herobrine", "qcom,sc7280";
> > >
> > > Can we stop adding "qcom,sc7280" to the board compatible string? It
> > > looks out of place. It's the compatible for the SoC and should really be
> > > the compatible for the /soc node.
> >
> > I don't have any objections, but I feel like this is the type of thing
> > I'd like Bjorn to have the final say on. What say you, Bjorn?
> >
>
> One practical case I can think of right away, where this matters is in
> cpufreq-dt-plat.c where we blocklist qcom,sc7280.
>
> I don't know if we rely on this in any other places, but I'm not keen on
> seeing a bunch of board-specific compatibles sprinkled throughout the
> implementation - it's annoying enough having to add each platform to
> these drivers.
Looking at sc7180, grep only shows cpufreq-dt-plat.c
$ git grep qcom,sc7180\" -- drivers
drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c: { .compatible = "qcom,sc7180", },
Simplest solution would be to look at / and /soc for a compatible
string.
$ git grep -W 'soc[^:]*{' -- arch/arm*/boot/dts/ | grep compatible |
grep -v "simple-bus"
doesn't show many hits. The first hit is "ti,omap-infra" which is
actually inside an soc node, but even then I don't see anything that
matches the cpufreq-dt-plat.c lists.
----8<-----
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
index ca1d103ec449..32bfe453f8b4 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
@@ -179,25 +179,29 @@ static bool __init cpu0_node_has_opp_v2_prop(void)
static int __init cpufreq_dt_platdev_init(void)
{
struct device_node *np = of_find_node_by_path("/");
+ struct device_node *soc_np = of_find_node_by_path("/soc");
const struct of_device_id *match;
const void *data = NULL;
- if (!np)
+ if (!np && !soc_np)
return -ENODEV;
match = of_match_node(allowlist, np);
- if (match) {
+ if (match || (match = of_match_node(allowlist, soc_np))) {
data = match->data;
goto create_pdev;
}
- if (cpu0_node_has_opp_v2_prop() && !of_match_node(blocklist, np))
+ if (cpu0_node_has_opp_v2_prop() && !of_match_node(blocklist, np) &&
+ !of_match_node(blocklist, soc_np))
goto create_pdev;
+ of_node_put(soc_np);
of_node_put(np);
return -ENODEV;
create_pdev:
+ of_node_put(soc_np);
of_node_put(np);
return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(platform_device_register_data(NULL, "cpufreq-dt",
-1, data,
