On 25/10/2022 13:22, Hector Martin wrote: > On 26/10/2022 01.01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 24/10/2022 00:39, Hector Martin wrote: >>> This binding represents the cpufreq/DVFS hardware present in Apple SoCs. >>> The hardware has an independent controller per CPU cluster, and we >>> represent them as unique nodes in order to accurately describe the >>> hardware. The driver is responsible for binding them as a single cpufreq >>> device (in the Linux cpufreq model). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml | 119 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 119 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..b11452f91468 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml >>> @@ -0,0 +1,119 @@ >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause >>> +%YAML 1.2 >>> +--- >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml# >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>> + >>> +title: Apple SoC cluster cpufreq device >> >> Few nits, in general looks fine to me. >> >>> + >>> +maintainers: >>> + - Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >>> + >>> +description: | >>> + Apple SoCs (e.g. M1) have a per-cpu-cluster DVFS controller that is part of >>> + the cluster management register block. This binding uses the standard >>> + operating-points-v2 table to define the CPU performance states, with the >>> + opp-level property specifying the hardware p-state index for that level. >>> + >>> +properties: >>> + compatible: >>> + oneOf: >>> + - items: >>> + - const: apple,t8103-cluster-cpufreq >>> + - const: apple,cluster-cpufreq >>> + - items: >>> + - const: apple,t6000-cluster-cpufreq >>> + - const: apple,t8103-cluster-cpufreq >>> + - const: apple,cluster-cpufreq >>> + - items: >>> + - const: apple,t8112-cluster-cpufreq >> >> With the first one (t8103) - it's an enum. > > This is deliberate. t6000 is compatible with t8103, but t8112 is not > (though all are compatible with what the generic apple,cluster-cpufreq > compatible implies). I was not talking about t6000. I was talking about two entries - first and last - which should be just an enum. There is no compatibility, so what is here deliberate? To not make enum things which are an enum? Best regards, Krzysztof
