On 5/11/25 11:51 AM, Akhil P Oommen wrote: > On 5/1/2025 9:23 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 5/1/25 11:29 AM, Akhil P Oommen wrote: >>> On 4/30/2025 10:26 PM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote: >>>> On 30/04/2025 18:39, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>> On 4/30/25 6:19 PM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote: >>>>>> On 30/04/2025 17:36, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/30/25 4:49 PM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote: >>>>>>>> On 30/04/2025 15:09, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 4/30/25 2:49 PM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 30/04/2025 14:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/25 2:26 PM, neil.armstr...@linaro.org wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> This behaves exactly as I said, so please fix it. >> >> Eh, I was so sure I tested things correctly.. >> >>> >>> Konrad, >>> >>> iirc, we discussed this in one of the earlier revision. There is a >>> circular dependency between the driver change for SKU support and the dt >>> change that adds supported_hw bitmask in opp-table. Only scenario it >>> works is when you add these to the initial patches series of a new GPU. >>> >>> It will be very useful if we can break this circular dependency. >> >> Right. Let's start with getting that in order > > Another complication with the socinfo is that the value is unique for a > chipset, not for a GPU. So, it won't work if we keep this data in GPU > list in the driver. > > Downstream solved this problem by keeping the PCODE/FCODE mappings in > the devicetree.
Hmm.. that actually does not sound very bad.. it would allow for e.g. new bins to appear without having to replace the kernel.. great for backwards/forwards compat Rob, WDYT? Konrad
