On 13/01/2023 17:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 13.01.2023 17:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 13/01/2023 16:22, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> SM4250 and SM6115 use a shared device tree and the RPMPDs are >>> identical. There's no need for a separate entry, so remove it. >>> >>> This reverts commit 45ac44ed10e58cf9b510e6552317ed7d2602346f. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 1 - >>> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 10 ---------- >>> 2 files changed, 11 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> index 633d49884019..5bb9f59d196f 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> @@ -39,7 +39,6 @@ properties: >>> - qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd >>> - qcom,sdx55-rpmhpd >>> - qcom,sdx65-rpmhpd >>> - - qcom,sm4250-rpmpd >> >> Yet, dedicated compatibles are usually recommended. Maybe this should be >> used with fallback: >> "qcom,sm4250-rpmpd", "qcom,sm6115-rpmpd" > The compatible has never been used so far and it's really the > same situation as SDM630/660 AFAIK, so I don't think it makes > much sense. OK, assuming these are almost the same SoCs in that aspect: Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof
