Hi, On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:40 PM Doug Anderson <diand...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:09 PM Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:49 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 18-12-18, 11:05, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > > OK, it's fine with me to have the fallback, but if we do we should be > > > > consistent about it and make sure it's in all the bindings and device > > > > tree files... > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > I am not sure what's the right way to do it is, i.e. should we keep the > > > "operating-points-v2" string or not. > > > > Does having it buy you anything? Given the QCom one doesn't have any > > frequency or voltage, I don't see how it would be useful to have it. > > ...but it does have a frequency, doesn't it? > > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > + > + opp-710000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; > + qcom,level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1>; > + };
Ah, I perhaps see the confusion. So Rajendra's usage of "operating-points-v2-qcom-level" [1] doesn't have a frequency but Jordan's do. So I guess it makes sense that Jordan's have the fallback compatible but Rajendra's don't? [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725793/ -Doug _______________________________________________ Freedreno mailing list Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno