On 26/10/2022 03.56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > 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? Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. You mean that the two entries should be merged, with an enum for the first item listing both SoCs, right? - Hector
