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> <CAA8EJprqXVrXdBD6eBHoDGhvST2hViZUbMgdaeKEBohpv5_V3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <554dd2ca-0514-dc1e-9add-d49a711bc1f2@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <554dd2ca-0514-dc1e-9add-d49a711bc1f2@linaro.org>
From:   Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 11:44:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA8EJpoj1OUtQv38CY6YWUjSLEXjRWNtuza7gWM5X=eEnd5XtQ@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 Thu, 23 Mar 2023 at 08:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/03/2023 23:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What do you want to update in the driver? What's going to happen with
> it? What is missing?

Some of these platforms do not have CPUfreq support, which will most
likely require programming of cluster and L2/L3 clocks being part of
this region.

For the reference, I think that sc7180/sm8150/other new platforms are
proper examples of 'compatible' devices, so the patchset itself has a
correct/good idea beneath. It's just that additional research might be
required for the older platforms.


--
With best wishes
Dmitry