[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85bd865b-71e7-40e1-9303-e970d338cb59@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:44:41 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
Dikshita Agarwal <quic_dikshita@...cinc.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: media: qcom,sm8550-iris: update power
domain name
On 11/03/2025 18:47, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>
> On 3/11/2025 11:03 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 11/03/2025 13:03, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>> Not all platforms has a collapsible mx, so use the more generic naming
>>> of mx in the binding.
>>>
>>
>> No, neither tested, nor justified. Read the file. How many platforms do
>> you have there? One. Out of this one platform you claim not all of them
>> have MX collapsible, so you want MX?
> Let say we have one which is non-collapsible, what should be the way in that
> case to use the bindings which differ only in the MX/MXC part ?
I don't care about imaginary things. Send patches for real hardware. How
does collapsibility of the domain change the real hardware interface?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists