On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 20:45, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.yaml
> + soc {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> + cpufreq@17d43000 {
> + compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw";
> + reg = <0x17d43000 0x1400>, <0x17d45800 0x1400>;
> + reg-names = "freq-domain0", "freq-domain1";
> +
> + clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&gcc GPLL0>;
> + clock-names = "xo", "alternate";
> +
> + #freq-domain-cells = <1>;
> + };
> + };
Why didn't we migrate to #performance-domain-cells here ? We can keep
the kernel backward compatible to support old DT definitions, but won't it be
better to move to a more generic solution, now that we have one ?
