Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230314080917.68246-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <c35fd641-12ff-beba-341c-4d0305bcaa40@linaro.org> <290b9b19-a320-38a1-4426-51f5725dd54f@linaro.org>
 <59a6ef88-758f-4ec4-f663-47e4caa552c5@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <59a6ef88-758f-4ec4-f663-47e4caa552c5@linaro.org>
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 00:28:55 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJprqXVrXdBD6eBHoDGhvST2hViZUbMgdaeKEBohpv5_V3w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] mailbox/arm64/ qcom: rework compatibles for fallback
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 at 19:37, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 16/03/2023 07:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 14/03/2023 13:16, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On 14/03/2023 10:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Changes since v1
> >>> ================
> >>> 1. Rebase
> >>> 2. Make msm8994 fallback for several variants, not msm8953, because the latter
> >>>     actually might take some clocks.
> >>
> >> Although the approach looks correct, I think that in some cases it tries
> >> to mark devices compatible judging from the current driver, not from the
> >> hardware itself.
> >
> > Which is what compatibility is about...

Well, I was trying to say that once we update the driver, the devices
will not be compatible. But probably our definitions of being
compatible differ.

> >
> >>
> >> For the reference, on msm8994 the apcs is a clock controller for the l2
> >> clocks (which we do not support yet). If I'm not mistaken, on msm8976
> >> the apcs region contains a mux for the cluster1 clocks. On sdm630/660
> >> the apcs region also seems to be involved in CPU clocks scaling.
> >
> > The question is this means they are incompatible?
>
> Since there are no more comments I assume they are actually compatible
> in the terms of SW interface.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry