On 16/07/2024 23:13, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> The display clock controller indices for SM8650 and SM8550 are
> completely equal. Replace the header file for qcom,sm8650-dispcc with
> the symlink to the qcom,sm8550-dispcc header file.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/clk/qcom/dispcc-sm8550.c | 2 +-
> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-dispcc.h | 103 +------------------------
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/dispcc-sm8550.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/dispcc-sm8550.c
> index 78e11eade2ea..9ffcd9eb9283 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/dispcc-sm8550.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/dispcc-sm8550.c
> @@ -1776,7 +1776,7 @@ static int disp_cc_sm8550_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> }
>
> if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,sm8650-dispcc")) {
> - lucid_ole_vco.max_freq = 2100000000;
> + lucid_ole_vco[0].max_freq = 2100000000;
This part does not look related.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
