On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 01:05:09PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On SA8295P and SA8540P the GFX rail is powered by a dedicated external > regulator, instead of the rpmh-controlled "gfx.lvl". > > Define the "vdd-gfx" as the supply regulator for the GDSC, to cause the > gdsc logic to look for, and control, this external power supply. > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c > index 8e147ee294ee..e2b3bc000c71 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c > @@ -399,6 +399,7 @@ static struct gdsc gx_gdsc = { > }, > .pwrsts = PWRSTS_OFF_ON, > .flags = CLAMP_IO | RETAIN_FF_ENABLE, > + .supply = "vdd-gfx", This change now triggers warnings on SC8280XP which does not have this supply: gpu_cc-sc8280xp 3d90000.clock-controller: supply vdd-gfx not found, using dummy regulator I've sent a change to start treating this optional supply as truly optional here (even if it has not shown up in lore yet): https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240325081957.10946-1-johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx But why are we still using the same compatible string for sc8280xp and sa8540p and sa8295p if they differ in such a way? Shouldn't these structures be different for the two classes of SoCs, which would avoid such issues and which would allow us to continue to warn if the supply is missing on a sa8540p derivative platforms where it appears to be required. Johan