Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: sophgo: Add support for newly added precise compatible

[Inochi Amaoto]

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:37:01PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 04:33:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 10:09:30AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > Add of device id definition for newly added precise compatible.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c | 3 +++
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c b/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c
> > > index e0c4dc347579..e10221df6385 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/sophgo/clk-cv1800.c
> > > @@ -1519,8 +1519,11 @@ static int cv1800_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >  
> > >  static const struct of_device_id cv1800_clk_ids[] = {
> > >  	{ .compatible = "sophgo,cv1800-clk", .data = &cv1800_desc },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,cv1800b-clk", .data = &cv1800_desc },
> > 
> > Given the same data is used here, should there not be fallbacks in the
> > dt for some of these? For example, 1812 to 1800? Or is that not okay,
> > because 1800 is not a real device id?
> > 
> > >  	{ .compatible = "sophgo,cv1810-clk", .data = &cv1810_desc },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,cv1812h-clk", .data = &cv1800_desc },
> > >  	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2000-clk", .data = &sg2000_desc },
> > > +	{ .compatible = "sophgo,sg2002-clk", .data = &sg2000_desc },
> 
> Actually, this one is a better example. sg2000 is not marked deprecated.
> sg2002 uses the same match data. Why is no fallback to sg2000 used for
> the sg2002 case?

Yeah, It is a good idea. I will take it, thanks,

Regards,
Inochi