On 28/11/2022 21.56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 28/11/2022 13:42, 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). >> >> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml | 117 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 117 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..a21271f73fc1 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml >> @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ >> +# 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 >> + >> +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: >> + - oneOf: > > This is enum. Sigh. Every single time I think the changes are too simple and I definitely don't need to run the DT checker this time. I'll send a v5 shortly because this is just me being an idiot. > Any other changes? Your cover letter say quite unspecific "minor review > feedback"... For the DT, the things you asked for ;) (this, dropping the reg description, and the performance-controller thing). - Hector
