On 4.08.2023 23:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 22:10, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> Would it not be more legitimate and logical to have 8350 use 8280xp's frequency table, instead of 8250 ?
>> top freq is higher on 8280
>
> Still though its a bit suspicious 8350 doesn't have its own table.
>
> Are we missing the downstream reference ?
8250:
qcom,allowed-clock-rates = <239999999 338000000 366000000 444000000>;
8350:
qcom,allowed-clock-rates = <239999999 338000000 366000000 444000000>;
(identical)
Konrad
On 04/08/2023 22:17, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 4.08.2023 23:12, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 22:10, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> Would it not be more legitimate and logical to have 8350 use 8280xp's frequency table, instead of 8250 ?
>>> top freq is higher on 8280
>>
>> Still though its a bit suspicious 8350 doesn't have its own table.
>>
>> Are we missing the downstream reference ?
> 8250:
> qcom,allowed-clock-rates = <239999999 338000000 366000000 444000000>;
>
> 8350:
> qcom,allowed-clock-rates = <239999999 338000000 366000000 444000000>;
>
> (identical)
>
> Konrad
Fair enough
Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <[email protected]>