Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Document SM8350 CPUfreq compatible
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date: 2021-02-17 04:51:06
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-pm, lkml
On 16-02-21, 16:42, Vinod Koul wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Add the CPUfreq compatible for SM8350 SoC along with note for using the specific compatible for SoCs Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt index 9299028ee712..3eb3cee59d79 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt@@ -8,7 +8,9 @@ Properties: - compatible Usage: required Value type: <string> - Definition: must be "qcom,cpufreq-hw" or "qcom,cpufreq-epss". + Definition: must be "qcom,cpufreq-hw" or "qcom,cpufreq-epss" + along with SoC specific compatible: + "qcom,sm8350-cpufreq-epss", "qcom,cpufreq-epss"
And why is SoC specific compatible required here ? Is the implementation on sm8350 any different than the ones using "qcom,cpufreq-epss" compatible ? FWIW, the same compatible string must be reused until the time there is difference in the hardware. The compatible string must be considered as a marker for a particular version of the hardware. -- viresh