Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: gpu: mali-valhall-csf: Document i.MX952 support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 01/04/2026 10:48, Guangliu Ding wrote:
> Hi Liviu
> 
> Thanks for your review. Please refer to my comments below:
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 06:12:38PM +0800, Guangliu Ding wrote:
>>> Add compatible string of Mali G310 GPU on i.MX952 board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Guangliu Ding <guangliu.ding@xxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Jiyu Yang <jiyu.yang@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml | 1 +
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
>>> index 8eccd4338a2b..6a10843a26e2 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-valhall-csf.yaml
>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
>>>            - enum:
>>>                - mediatek,mt8196-mali
>>>                - nxp,imx95-mali            # G310
>>> +              - nxp,imx952-mali           # G310
>>
>> Can you explain why this is needed? Can it not be covered by the existing
>> compatible?
> 
> There are functional differences in GPU module (GPUMIX) between i.MX95 
> and i.MX952. So they cannot be fully covered by a single existing compatible.
> On i.MX952, The GPU clock is controlled by hardware GPU auto clock-gating 
> mechanism, while the GPU clock is managed explicitly by the driver on i.MX95.
> Because of these behavioral differences, separate compatible strings
> "nxp,imx95-mali" and "nxp,imx952-mali" are needed to allow the driver to handle
> the two variants independently and to keep room for future divergence.

That's pretty arguable statement considering there is no driver code
using it, so basically this patchset admits openly devices are fully
compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof