On 11/4/2024 4:08 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > 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. > > Existing compatibles for sc7280 and sm8250 do not break the backward compatibility. I will take up the update of generic compatibles for these two SoCs as separate patch series.
