On 05-03-21, 15:57, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:18:20PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 18-02-21, 18:14, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > On 17-02-21, 10:19, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > On 16-02-21, 16:42, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > > Add the CPUfreq compatible for SM8350 SoC along with note for using the > > > > > specific compatible for SoCs > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt | 4 +++- > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt > > > > > index 9299028ee712..3eb3cee59d79 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt > > > > > @@ -8,7 +8,9 @@ Properties: > > > > > - compatible > > > > > Usage: required > > > > > Value type: <string> > > > > > - Definition: must be "qcom,cpufreq-hw" or "qcom,cpufreq-epss". > > > > > + Definition: must be "qcom,cpufreq-hw" or "qcom,cpufreq-epss" > > > > > + along with SoC specific compatible: > > > > > + "qcom,sm8350-cpufreq-epss", "qcom,cpufreq-epss" > > > > > > > > And why is SoC specific compatible required here ? Is the implementation on > > > > sm8350 any different than the ones using "qcom,cpufreq-epss" compatible ? > > > > > > > > FWIW, the same compatible string must be reused until the time there is > > > > difference in the hardware. The compatible string must be considered as a marker > > > > for a particular version of the hardware. > > > > > > Rob has indicated that we should use a SoC specific compatible and I > > > agree with that. We are using both soc and generic one here and driver > > > will be loaded for generic one. > > > > I am not sure of the context, lets see what Rob has to say on this. I > > believe we only need 1 compatible string here (whatever it is), as > > this is just one version of the hardware we are talking about. We > > already have 2 somehow and you are trying to add one more and I don't > > fell good about it. :( > > The h/w block is the same features and bugs in every single > implementation? If not sure, better be safe. > > I don't know that I'd go back and add SoC ones for everything though. I would prefer we have SoC ones to be future proof.. -- ~Vinod
