On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 09:35, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 4.11.2024 7:40 AM, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote: > > > > > > On 11/1/2024 12:26 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 12:23:57PM +0530, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 10/26/2024 8:15 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>>> On Sat, Oct 26, 2024 at 12:30:56PM +0000, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote: > >>>>> Add Epoch Subsystem (EPSS) L3 interconnect provider binding on > >>>>> SA8775P SoCs. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Raviteja Laggyshetty <quic_rlaggysh@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml | 4 ++++ > >>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml > >>>>> index 21dae0b92819..042ca44c32ec 100644 > >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml > >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,osm-l3.yaml > >>>>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ properties: > >>>>> - qcom,sm8250-epss-l3 > >>>>> - qcom,sm8350-epss-l3 > >>>>> - const: qcom,epss-l3 > >>>>> + - items: > >>>>> + - enum: > >>>>> + - qcom,sa8775p-epss-l3 > >>>>> + - const: qcom,epss-l3-perf > >>>> > >>>> Why is it -perf? What's so different about it? > >>> > >>> The EPSS instance in SA8775P uses PERF_STATE register instead of REG_L3_VOTE to scale L3 clocks. > >>> So adding new generic compatible "qcom,epss-l3-perf" for PERF_STATE register based l3 scaling. > >> > >> Neither sm8250 nor sc7280 use this compatible, while they also use > >> PERF_STATE register. > >> > > That is correct, both sm8250 and sc7280 use perf state register. > > The intention for adding "qcom,epss-l3-perf" generic compatible is to use it for the chipsets which use perf state register for l3 scaling. > > Using generic compatible avoids the need for adding chipset specific compatible in match table. > > That is exactly what bindings guidelines forbid. > > You need a SoC-specific compatible so that you can address platform- > specific quirks that may arise in the future while keeping backwards > compatibility with older device trees The proposed bindings have SoC-specific compat. If that's not against the current rules, I'd prefer to have qcom,epss-l3-perf to be added to sc7280 and sm8250 too. -- With best wishes Dmitry
