On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:56:37AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled > > > > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding, > > > > let's update the examples. > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we > > > mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still > > > lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for > > > suggestions. > > > > I am certainly fine with either way! > > > > However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road, > > maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That > > said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update > > to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean > > we get a nice reference for how to use this too. > > > > > > > > Other than that, > > > > > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> > > > > Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going? > Sorry Ulf, this slipped through the cracks, will queue it. > Please take via SCMI tree. > Sure > Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks -- Regards, Sudeep
