On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 02:48:29PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 8.08.2022 15:35, Christian Marangi wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 12:55:36PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 7.08.2022 15:00, Christian Marangi wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 06:18:24PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > >>>> Add ipq8064-v2.0 dtsi variant that differ from original ipq8064 SoC for > >>>> some additional pcie, sata and usb configuration values, additional > >>>> reserved memory and serial output. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Any news for this?Unless Qualcomm naming was different back then, you should simply merge > >> all of these changes into ipq8064.dtsi, as v1 is often the pre-production, > >> internal chip revision and only the last one (or the last and second-last) > >> are shipped in production devices. > >> > > > > Mhh, this is not the case, there are dev board based on v1 and we also > > have some device based on v1 (that have some difference for pci and usb) > > One example is a Netgear r7500 where we have 2 revision one based on > > ipq8064-v1.0 and one based on ipq8064-v2.0. > Very interesting.. but if there really are devices shipping with v1, I guess > it's the correct thing to keep both. > > Konrad Yep, that is the case. Main concern here is the fact that we have to have smb208 dtsi variant for each revision and we can't reuse v2 for ipq8065 and ipq8062 as they have different opp for the CPU core. (currently not present but they will be added in the future when we will finally have a correct krait cache devfreq driver) -- Ansuel
