Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] cpufreq: qcom-nvmem: add compatible fallback for ipq806x for no SMEM

[Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 04:34:22PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 03:19:12PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 03:26:46PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2025 at 02:08:34PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > +		if (of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8062"))
> > > > +			msm_id = QCOM_ID_IPQ8062;
> > > > +		else if (of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8065") ||
> > > > +			 of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8069"))
> > > > +			msm_id = QCOM_ID_IPQ8065;
> > > > +		else if (of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8064") ||
> > > > +			 of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8066") ||
> > > > +			 of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8068"))
> > > > +			msm_id = QCOM_ID_IPQ8064;
> > > 
> > > A nit-pick (in case you need a new version of the series): I would expect
> > > the conditionals be sorted by assigned value.
> > > 
> > > 		if (of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8062"))
> > > 			msm_id = QCOM_ID_IPQ8062;
> > > 		else if (of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8064") ||
> > > 			 of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8066") ||
> > > 			 of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8068"))
> > > 			msm_id = QCOM_ID_IPQ8064;
> > > 		else if (of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8065") ||
> > > 			 of_machine_is_compatible("qcom,ipq8069"))
> > > 			msm_id = QCOM_ID_IPQ8065;
> > >
> > 
> > Hi as said in the commit, parsing 65/69 before 64 is needed as we might
> > have compatible like
> > 
> > "qcom,ipq8065","qcom,ipq8064" so we might incorrectly parse msm_id
> > ipq8064.
> 
> Oh, this is unfortunate. Wouldn't it be possible to use some API that returns
> an index (or an error if not found) of the compatible? I believe we have a such
> for the regular 'compatible' properties.
> 

Well also using something like checking for the virst compatible might
be problematic as real device have something like "netgear,r7800",
"qcom,ipq8065","qcom,ipq8064".

I will check if I can implement some alternative logic to have
consistent order.

-- 
	Ansuel