On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 15:00, Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 29/11/2022 20.36, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 15:29, Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +examples:
> >> + - |
> >> + // This example shows a single CPU per domain and 2 domains,
> >> + // with two p-states per domain.
> >> + // Shipping hardware has 2-4 CPUs per domain and 2-6 domains.
> >> + cpus {
> >> + #address-cells = <2>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> +
> >> + cpu@0 {
> >> + compatible = "apple,icestorm";
> >> + device_type = "cpu";
> >> + reg = <0x0 0x0>;
> >> + operating-points-v2 = <&ecluster_opp>;
> >
> > To me, it looks like the operating-points-v2 phandle better belongs in
> > the performance-domains provider node. I mean, isn't the OPPs really a
> > description of the performance-domain provider?
> >
> > That said, I suggest we try to extend the generic performance-domain
> > binding [1] with an "operating-points-v2". In that way, we should
> > instead be able to reference it from this binding.
> >
> > In fact, that would be very similar to what already exists for the
> > generic power-domain binding [2]. I think it would be rather nice to
> > follow a similar pattern for the performance-domain binding.
>
> While I agree with the technical rationale and the proposed approach
> being better in principle...
>
> We're at v5 of bikeshedding this trivial driver's DT binding, and the
> comment could've been made at v3. To quote IRC just now:
It could and I certainly apologize for that.
It's simply been a busy period for me, so I haven't been able to look
closer at the DT bindings, until now.
>
> > this way the machines will be obsolete before things are fully upstreamed
>
> I think it's long overdue for the kernel community to take a deep look
> at itself and its development and review process, because it is quite
> honestly insane how pathologically inefficient it is compared to,
> basically, every other large and healthy open source project of similar
> or even greater impact and scope.
>
> Cc Linus, because this is for your Mac and I assume you care. We're at
> v5 here for this silly driver. Meanwhile, rmk recently threw the towel
> on upstreaming macsmc for us. We're trying, and I'll keep trying because
> I actually get paid (by very generous donors) to do this, but if I
> weren't I'd have given up a long time ago. And while I won't give up, I
> can't deny this situation affects my morale and willingness to keep
> pushing on upstreaming on a regular basis.
>
> Meanwhile, OpenBSD has been *shipping* full M1 support for a while now
> in official release images (and since Linux is the source of truth for
> DT bindings, every time we re-bikeshed it we break their users because
> they, quite reasonably, aren't interested in waiting for us Linux
> slowpokes to figure it out first).
>
> Please, let's introspect about this for a moment. Something is deeply
> broken if people with 25+ years being an arch maintainer can't get a
> 700-line mfd driver upstreamed before giving up. I don't know how we
> expect to ever get a Rust GPU driver merged if it takes 6+ versions to
> upstream the world's easiest cpufreq hardware.
>
> - Hector
I didn't intend to bikesheed this, while I do understand your valid
concerns from the above statements.
Instead, my intent was to help, by reviewing. Simply, because I care
about this too.
If you think incorporating the changes I proposed is a too big deal at
this point, let me not stand in the way of applying this. In the end,
it's the DT maintainers' decision.
Kind regards
Uffe
