[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fff1a05c-5e7c-451d-9b08-4e835d6ab131@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:22:02 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Raviteja Laggyshetty <quic_rlaggysh@...cinc.com>,
Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>,
Odelu Kukatla <quic_okukatla@...cinc.com>,
Mike Tipton <quic_mdtipton@...cinc.com>, Sibi Sankar
<quic_sibis@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/4] dt-bindings: interconnect: Add generic compatible
qcom,epss-l3-perf
On 27/11/2024 19:49, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 27 November 2024 20:27:27 EET, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On 27/11/2024 17:53, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 08:23:04AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 05:45:10PM +0000, Raviteja Laggyshetty wrote:
>>>>> EPSS instance on sc7280, sm8250 SoCs, use PERF_STATE register instead of
>>>>> REG_L3_VOTE to scale L3 clocks, hence adding a new generic compatible
>>>>> "qcom,epss-l3-perf" for these targets.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a h/w difference from prior blocks or you just want to use B
>>>> instead of A while the h/w has both A and B? The latter sounds like
>>>> driver policy.
>>>>
>>>> It is also an ABI break for s/w that didn't understand
>>>> qcom,epss-l3-perf.
>>>
>>> As the bindings keep old compatible strings in addition to the new
>>> qcom,epss-l3-perf, where is the ABI break? Old SW will use old entries,
>>> newer can use either of those.
>> No, this change drops qcom,epss-l3 and adds new fallback. How old
>> software can work in such case? It's broken.
>
> Oh, I see. We had a platform-specific overrides for those two. Then I think we should completely drop the new qcom,epss-l3-perf idea and follow the sm8250 / sc7280 example. This means compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-perf", "qcom,epss-l3".
It depends for example whether epss-l3 is valid at all. ABI is not
broken if nothing was working in the first place, assuming it is
explained in commit msg (not the case here).
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists