Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Document SM8350 CPUfreq compatible

[Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>]

On 17-02-21, 10:19, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 16-02-21, 16:42, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > 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.

Rob has indicated that we should use a SoC specific compatible and I
agree with that. We are using both soc and generic one here and driver
will be loaded for generic one.

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod