Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <f4af0e40-9e93-dba9-7401-cdfc76ba667e@somainline.org>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 20:58:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.1.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] cpufreq: qcom_cpufreq_nvmem: Simplify reading kryo
 speedbin
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Yassine Oudjana <y.oudjana@protonmail.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Ilia Lin <ilia.lin@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@linaro.org>
Cc:     AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
        phone-devel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20211014083016.137441-1-y.oudjana@protonmail.com>
 <20211014083016.137441-5-y.oudjana@protonmail.com>
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
In-Reply-To: <20211014083016.137441-5-y.oudjana@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 14.10.2021 10:32, Yassine Oudjana wrote:
> In preparation for adding a separate device tree for MSM8996 Pro, skip reading
> msm-id from smem and just read the speedbin efuse.
>
While I'd really like for this to be merged, it's gonna totally wreck backwards

compatibility.. But then, since APCC was not defined properly before commit

0a275a35ceab07 arm64: dts: qcom: msm8996: Make CPUCC actually probe (and work)

there's only 5.14/5.15 (both of which were non-LTS) which would *actually* break given

somebody decided that "ah yes, pulling in DTs from these specific mainline kernel releases

is a good idea"...


If I were to judge, it would probably be fine to rid the old mechanism..


Konrad