[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <otuaro3xh2ut3kurcomrq5j3guyyj7uhhwgngqdqqrrcpvlk6t@4wqbxy3m3tq7>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2025 06:43:07 +0800
From: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Chen Wang <unicorn_wang@...look.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>, Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>,
Thomas Bonnefille <thomas.bonnefille@...tlin.com>, Jeff Johnson <jeff.johnson@....qualcomm.com>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, sophgo@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Yixun Lan <dlan@...too.org>,
Longbin Li <looong.bin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: sophgo: Add support for newly added precise
compatible
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:37:01PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:33:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:09:30AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > Add of device id definition for newly added precise compatible.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...il.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c b/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c
> > > index e0c4dc347579..e10221df6385 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c
> > > @@ -1519,8 +1519,11 @@ static int cv1800_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >
> > > static const struct of_device_id cv1800_clk_ids[] = {
> > > { .compatible = "sophgo,cv1800-clk", .data = &cv1800_desc },
> > > + { .compatible = "sophgo,cv1800b-clk", .data = &cv1800_desc },
> >
> > Given the same data is used here, should there not be fallbacks in the
> > dt for some of these? For example, 1812 to 1800? Or is that not okay,
> > because 1800 is not a real device id?
> >
> > > { .compatible = "sophgo,cv1810-clk", .data = &cv1810_desc },
> > > + { .compatible = "sophgo,cv1812h-clk", .data = &cv1800_desc },
> > > { .compatible = "sophgo,sg2000-clk", .data = &sg2000_desc },
> > > + { .compatible = "sophgo,sg2002-clk", .data = &sg2000_desc },
>
> Actually, this one is a better example. sg2000 is not marked deprecated.
> sg2002 uses the same match data. Why is no fallback to sg2000 used for
> the sg2002 case?
Yeah, It is a good idea. I will take it, thanks,
Regards,
Inochi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists