[PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Make RK3588 GPU OPP table naming uniform

[Heiko Stübner]

Am Samstag, 6. September 2025, 14:10:22 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit schrieb Dragan Simic:
> Hello Diederik,
> 
> On 2025-09-06 13:40, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> > On Sat Sep 6, 2025 at 12:01 PM CEST, Dragan Simic wrote:
> >> Unify the naming of the existing GPU OPP table nodes found in the 
> >> RK3588
> >> and RK3588J SoC dtsi files with the other SoC's GPU OPP nodes, 
> >> following
> >> the more "modern" node naming scheme.
> > 
> > Like we discussed in private (without an agreement), I think it would 
> > be
> > beneficial if the (gpu) opp naming would be made consistent across SoC
> > series as right now there are several different naming schemes applied.
> > They're all valid, but inconsistent. And if consistency is improved,
> > which I like, then let's go 'all the way'?
> 
> As we discussed it already in private, I fully agree about performing
> the "opp-table-X => opp-table-{clusterX,gpu}" naming cleanup 
> consistently
> for all Rockchip SoCs, but I'm afraid it would be seen as an unnecessary
> "code churn" at this point, especially because my upcoming Rockchip SoC
> binning patch series is a good candidate for such a cleanup.
> 
> On top of that, I'd be a bit weary about performing at least some of the
> testing associated with such a platform-wide cleanup, despite actually
> performing no functional changes and being a safe change.  On the other
> hand, "bundling" such a cleanup with the Rockchip SoC binning patches
> would get us detailed testing for free, so to speak.
> 
> Of course, if the maintainers see this as a good opportunity to perform
> a platform-wide cleanup at this point, instead of seeing it as a "code
> churn", I'll still be happy to extend this small patch into a platform-
> wide naming cleanup of the "opp-table-X" nodes.  On the other hand, if
> this patch remains as-is, it may hit a good balance between resolving
> the currently present naming ambiguity and the amount of introduced
> changes.

Personally I'm always for the "we strive to get there eventually" thing.
If there is an established goal to reach, steps can be incremental :-) .

And also short and scope-limited patches are easier to review anyway.

Heiko