On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 10:08:45AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 02:13:33AM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote: > > qcom,hawi-cdsp-pas was initially grouped as a fallback to > > qcom,sm8550-cdsp-pas on the assumption of hardware-level compatibility. > > Bringup revealed that the NSP proxy power domain on Hawi requires a > > specific RPMH performance level that the sm8550 driver data does not > > provide, breaking the compatibility contract the fallback string implies. > > The actual OPP level is another DT property (required-opps), thus > difference here does not define whether devices are or are not > compatible.
I discussed this in the last version and using required-opps would be too much for the temporary voting needed by remoteproc during boot up. > > Maybe you meant it is part of additional power domain? But that actually > still feels compatible, especially that device WAS working fine with > single power domain, right? > At the DT-binding level, Hawi CDSP has the same power-domain topology as sm8550-cdsp-pas (cx/mxc/nsp). There is a recent firmware change done on Hawi after which it no longer supports the Turbo performance level on NSP rail. -- -Mukesh Ojha
