On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:05 PM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:52 AM Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 at 16:46, Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 05:28:51PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > [..] > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdx75.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > > Acked-by: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Note, we'd need to override PMU compatibles in sdm636.dtsi and > > sdm660.dtsi. Ideally it should come as the same patch. > > Uh, that's an A for reuse, but an F for readability... It's sdm632 as > well. Will drop sdm630. Actually, aren't those Kryo cores just Cortex-A53 derivatives? So the A53 PMU compatible is an improvement over the generic one still. We can't just add kryo260-pmu compatibles because that breaks compatibility. We could have a fallback, but then that introduces a pattern we don't want. Rob
