On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 at 01:00, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 02:46:21PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > The protocol@13 node is describing the performance scaling option for the > > ARM SCMI interface, as a clock provider. This is unnecessary limiting, as > > performance scaling is in many cases not limited to switching a clock's > > frequency. > > > > Therefore, let's extend the binding so the interface can be modelled as a > > generic "performance domain" too. The common way to describe this, is to > > use the "power-domain" bindings, so let's use that. > > What's wrong with the performance-domain binding? In my opinion I think the performance-domain binding is superfluous. We already have plenty of power-domains that do performance scaling too - and they stick with the power-domain binding, as it's sufficient. That said, I would rather follow the defacto standard that has been used for many years in the kernel. Do you have a preference that we should stick to? Kind regards Uffe > > > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > index 5824c43e9893..cff9d1e4cea1 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml > > @@ -145,8 +145,8 @@ properties: > > '#clock-cells': > > const: 1 > > > > - required: > > - - '#clock-cells' > > + '#power-domain-cells': > > + const: 1 > > > > protocol@14: > > $ref: '#/$defs/protocol-node' > > -- > > 2.34.1 > >
