Hi Wolfram,
On 2025-08-11 14:13, Wolfram Sang wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2025 at 05:37:53PM +0200, Luca Weiss wrote:
Add a config for the v1.2.5 CCI found on msm8953 which has different
Given the above version number...
static const struct of_device_id cci_dt_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8226-cci", .data = &cci_v1_data},
+ { .compatible = "qcom,msm8953-cci", .data = &cci_msm8953_data},
... why don't we use it here to stay consistent? cci_v1_2_5_data?
I don't think the existing 'v2' or 'v1' configs have much to do with the
actual
HW_VERSION of the IP block. For example on of the newer Qualcomm SoCs
has HW
version 1.7.0 and is many years newer than the msm8996 which was called
'v2'.
I'm also not sure what these parameters depend on, if it's CCI HW
version, or
something else. So naming it after the SoC should be a safer bet. Also
the
msm8974-cci was only named 'v1.5' because it's an inbetween mix of the
v1 and
v2 that were already upstream so arguably that one shouldn't have been
called
v1.5 in the first place either.
Let me know what you think. Maybe also someone from Qualcomm/Linaro can
jump
in and share their thoughts, if someone knows more what these params
depend on.
Regards
Luca
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8974-cci", .data = &cci_v1_5_data},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-cci", .data = &cci_v2_data},
