[PATCH v6 2/2] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add gpu and gmu device nodes

[Viresh Kumar]

+Rob +Stephen,

On 14-12-18, 09:04, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:41 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar at linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 12-12-18, 14:18, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > +                     gpu_opp_table: opp-table {
> > > +                             compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level";
> >
> > I think you need to mention "operating-points-v2" as well here.
> 
> Are you saying the above should be:
>   compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level", "operating-points-v2";
> 
> If so I'm not sure I agree.

Well I have my doubts as well on this. This is where the ordering was discussed
earlier:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/152328979897.180276.15963925877442657158@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com/

@Rob/Stephen: Should the opp-table node above also have "operating-points-v2"
string in the compatible property ?

> It's _not_ really compatible with the
> "operating-points-v2" binding.  If you had a driver that had never
> heard of "operating-points-v2-qcom-level" and had only heard of
> "operating-points-v2" and it took a look at this node it would have no
> idea what to do with it.

Well it will parse everything apart from the qcom,level thing, so it can
actually parse stuff here.

> I'll also note that other instances posted to the list don't list both:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725801/ - RPM / RPMH PD bindings
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725793/ - RPMH PD device tree for sdm845
> 
> The bindings patch also makes no mention of needing
> "operating-points-v2".  I think the common case when a fallback is
> required it is explicitly called out in the bindings:
> 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10725803/ - qcom-opp bindings

Sure, maybe I am wrong but its better to get some clarity on it from Rob/Stephen.

-- 
viresh