[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10086127-c733-364c-25da-0332c2336925@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 08:21:45 -0400
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
Cc: Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] dt-bindings: interconnect: qcom,msm8998-bwmon: Add
sc8280xp bwmon instances
On 02/11/2022 23:37, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 06:15:50PM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/10/2022 23:41, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> The sc8280xp platform has two BWMON instances, one v4 and one v5. Extend
>>> the existing qcom,msm8998-bwmon and qcom,sc7280-llcc-bwmon to describe
>>> these.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,msm8998-bwmon.yaml | 5 +++++
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,msm8998-bwmon.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,msm8998-bwmon.yaml
>>> index be29e0b80995..223cd6ecf279 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,msm8998-bwmon.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/qcom,msm8998-bwmon.yaml
>>> @@ -25,9 +25,14 @@ properties:
>>> - items:
>>> - enum:
>>> - qcom,sc7280-cpu-bwmon
>>> + - qcom,sc8280xp-bwmon
>>
>> qcom,sc8280xp-cpu-bwmon
>> To match sc7280. I think it's better than my initial choice for
>> qcom,sdm845-bwmon without the cpu part.
>>
>
> As discussed back then, we omitted "cpu" because there where multiple instances
> of the bwmon block. Would you prefer we give it the "cpu" compatible and
> potentially us it for non-cpu measurements?
I think yes, because we actually do not know whether measuring on
non-cpu instances would work without some adjustments...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists