On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 4:40 PM Doug Anderson dianders@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:40 PM Doug Anderson dianders@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:09 PM Rob Herring robh@kernel.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:49 PM Viresh Kumar viresh.kumar@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?
Is having it useful to s/w that doesn't understand "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"? If so, then add "operating-points-v2". If not, then don't.
I don't really care either way. Just don't do both ways and document which way is correct.
Rob