Hi,

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:40 PM Doug Anderson [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:09 PM Rob Herring [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:49 PM Viresh Kumar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 18-12-18, 11:05, Doug Anderson wrote:

quoted

OK, it's fine with me to have the fallback, but if we do we should be
consistent about it and make sure it's in all the bindings and device
tree files...

Sure.

I am not sure what's the right way to do it is, i.e. should we keep the
"operating-points-v2" string or not.

Does having it buy you anything? Given the QCom one doesn't have any
frequency or voltage, I don't see how it would be useful to have it.

...but it does have a frequency, doesn't it?

+   compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
+
+   opp-710000000 {
+     opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>;
+     qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1>;
+   };

Ah, I perhaps see the confusion.  So Rajendra's usage of
"operating-points-v2-qcom-level" [1] doesn't have a frequency but
Jordan's do.  So I guess it makes sense that Jordan's have the
fallback compatible but Rajendra's don't?

[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725793/

-Doug

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel