[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c68a688d-c007-2daf-5993-1fe5c765d96f@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:52:59 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@...cinc.com>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] dt-bindings: interconnect: qcom,msm8998-cpu-bwmon:
add BWMON device
On 30/06/2022 13:29, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> I just update the binding with the new SoC compatible (lets say qcom,sc7280-llcc-bwmon)
>>> and in the device tree node use it as
>>> compatible = "qcom,sc7280-llcc-bwmon", "qcom,sdm845-llcc-bwmon", "qcom,msm8998-llcc-bwmon";
>>> without any updates in the driver?
>>
>> I expect:
>> "qcom,sc7280-llcc-bwmon", "qcom,msm8998-llcc-bwmon";
>> and you need to add sc7280 compatible to the driver. The actual proper
>> solution in my patch would be to use msm8998 compatible in the driver,
>> but I did not test MSM8998.
>>
>> Maybe we should switch to that anyway?
>
> Right, looks like without it every new SoC compatible added would need a dummy
> update in the driver even though you really don't need to do anything different
> in the driver.
OK, then v7 is coming :)
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists