From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.manjaro.org (mail.manjaro.org [116.203.91.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0490B27FD48; Sat, 6 Sep 2025 12:57:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757163480; cv=none; b=NJoiexpI0mt2vnZCvmw+O/ta/0fOTHL7A7YN7BOBzKyxOHhaDW5OXBwrgIGLvb/R4yYswyvuBs5S8i/+mWuHvp9ndxOH1ULe1ZTzcjkgti+r6FXIGNJ+MPKHGoXg7oAKlMI4ksD3v7KVNNDhe38NwTq1vemEx+Mmhyf1LI70fRQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757163480; c=relaxed/simple; bh=CRBvtOSYXzdy6nOSB7JyFY0zI0ccnfFCwTfe18suORA=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=WSdb+HrtbQ7Eik53sK9gq2ar3j8TL6OMN1yLxKHM/Ou/qe5/G4/NRloc7nj6mzrbHsWjrgJRRNKijy4rfU+igQA1VLvyVDjU21t/nGxjjAXVMvPzexTdPNFReoCmSSQpY5o9xycFoKucSIHF0ijxPfeFXlBYV26K6C7p7/cICe0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b=XkpDbGiO; arc=none smtp.client-ip=116.203.91.91 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=manjaro.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=manjaro.org header.i=@manjaro.org header.b="XkpDbGiO" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=manjaro.org; s=2021; t=1757163476; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gBvknfRADrFTmcYESe6FCG/DDohCJeCBYoa6CBvKIBU=; b=XkpDbGiOFHdQgB47WOPXPYIS3DTQy0c5jxkWEfob9EfgzYFSNRP9rSKd1v0AIi9ihAVPdx aZjIX4ENRCw9Qb+7f9vDATzWkRvOPjT3RqdIZ9/LYiXqGBX7fl5d4aBQh7ANwssBHKcWkL DzZQR3TYyHg0/PgBKf6mgXezWu2W4fPkYZlKZwbecZGYkWZEBi/NMhE8lcE1KAMN0f2M7W DK8rTMFX8t0t3ZfY44BlmrlUwtBULe4ON2qDeWalDoKKQj4Hh1Lz2oshs8X0s1jEzHIyZA KoMUppZZvNgrdQw9KCVfaqmHItrj6uqcIyPIBCSlTjgStWa0lLx0cKVZGml6kQ== Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2025 14:57:55 +0200 From: Dragan Simic To: =?UTF-8?Q?Heiko_St=C3=BCbner?= Cc: Diederik de Haas , linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Make RK3588 GPU OPP table naming uniform In-Reply-To: <3169011.CbtlEUcBR6@diego> References: <355c16ab070688fc6285e0d4419eb54a3f699eee.1757152740.git.dsimic@manjaro.org> <47cf50f2f497108a923815c12b1f8c9b@manjaro.org> <3169011.CbtlEUcBR6@diego> Message-ID: X-Sender: dsimic@manjaro.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Authentication-Results: ORIGINATING; auth=pass smtp.auth=dsimic@manjaro.org smtp.mailfrom=dsimic@manjaro.org Hello Heiko, On 2025-09-06 14:21, Heiko Stübner wrote: > Am Samstag, 6. September 2025, 14:10:22 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit > schrieb Dragan Simic: >> On 2025-09-06 13:40, Diederik de Haas wrote: >> > On Sat Sep 6, 2025 at 12:01 PM CEST, Dragan Simic wrote: >> >> Unify the naming of the existing GPU OPP table nodes found in the >> >> RK3588 >> >> and RK3588J SoC dtsi files with the other SoC's GPU OPP nodes, >> >> following >> >> the more "modern" node naming scheme. >> > >> > Like we discussed in private (without an agreement), I think it would >> > be >> > beneficial if the (gpu) opp naming would be made consistent across SoC >> > series as right now there are several different naming schemes applied. >> > They're all valid, but inconsistent. And if consistency is improved, >> > which I like, then let's go 'all the way'? >> >> As we discussed it already in private, I fully agree about performing >> the "opp-table-X => opp-table-{clusterX,gpu}" naming cleanup >> consistently >> for all Rockchip SoCs, but I'm afraid it would be seen as an >> unnecessary >> "code churn" at this point, especially because my upcoming Rockchip >> SoC >> binning patch series is a good candidate for such a cleanup. >> >> On top of that, I'd be a bit weary about performing at least some of >> the >> testing associated with such a platform-wide cleanup, despite actually >> performing no functional changes and being a safe change. On the >> other >> hand, "bundling" such a cleanup with the Rockchip SoC binning patches >> would get us detailed testing for free, so to speak. >> >> Of course, if the maintainers see this as a good opportunity to >> perform >> a platform-wide cleanup at this point, instead of seeing it as a "code >> churn", I'll still be happy to extend this small patch into a >> platform- >> wide naming cleanup of the "opp-table-X" nodes. On the other hand, if >> this patch remains as-is, it may hit a good balance between resolving >> the currently present naming ambiguity and the amount of introduced >> changes. > > Personally I'm always for the "we strive to get there eventually" > thing. > If there is an established goal to reach, steps can be incremental :-) > . > > And also short and scope-limited patches are easier to review anyway. I see. After thinking a bit more about it, I'll turn this patch into a small series, in which this patch becomes the 1/2, and the 2/2 is a new, larger patch that extends the "opp-table-X" naming cleanup to the entire platform. That way, the 1/2 kind of fixes something, while the 2/2 performs a cleanup, which may be helpful in the unlikely case that some regression is found down the road.