Re: [PATCH 2/6] clk: qcom: Add support for GPU Clock Controller on QCS8300

[Imran Shaik <quic_imrashai@quicinc.com>]

On 10/21/2024 8:41 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/10/2024 12:56, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>   	{ }
>>>>   };
>>>> @@ -596,6 +635,14 @@ static int gpu_cc_sa8775p_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>   	if (IS_ERR(regmap))
>>>>   		return PTR_ERR(regmap);
>>>>   
>>>> +	if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, "qcom,qcs8300-gpucc")) {
>>>
>>> Why we cannot use match data? Seeing compatibles in the code is
>>> unexpected and does not scale.
>>
>> Because using match data doesn't scale in such cases. We have been using
> 
> I don't understand how it could not scale. That's the entire point of
> match data - scaling.
> 
>> compatibles to patch clock trees for the platforms for quite a while.
>> You can see that each of the "tunings" is slightly different. From my
> 
> 
> You have one driver, where are these tunings which are supposed to be
> different? You need here only enum or define, in the simplest choice.
> 
>> point of view, this approach provides a nice balance between having a
>> completely duplicate driver and having a driver which self-patches the
>> tree.
> 
> How duplicate driver got into this? I don't think we talk about the
> same. I meant ID table match data.
>>

I agree with Dmitry. If I understand correctly, to add match data 
support, we need to define the gpu_cc_qcs8300_clocks struct by 
duplicating the entries from gpu_cc_sa8775p_clocks and then adding the 
additional qcs8300 clocks. The compatible approach is simpler and used 
across most existing platforms.

Thanks,
Imran

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>