Would it be better to have below dts structure instead?:
1) Add a qcs9075.dtsi that includes sa8775p.dtsi and qcs9075-thermal.dtsi.
2) Have a qcs9075-ride.dtsi that includes sa8776p.dtsi and
qcs9075-thermal.dtsi.
3) Ensure all qcs9075 board dts include qcs9075-ride.dtsi
>
> / {
> model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. QCS9075 Ride";
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs9075-thermal.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs9075-thermal.dtsi
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..40544c8582c4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs9075-thermal.dtsi
> @@ -0,0 +1,287 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2024 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
> + */
> +
> +#include <dt-bindings/thermal/thermal.h>
> +
> +&cpu0 {
> + #cooling-cells = <2>;
Why is cpu0 treated specially when it doesn't include
cpu0_idle/thermal-idle nodes? Could you provide the information to the
commit message?
By the way, if there is no cpu0_idle, does that mean the #cooling-cell
is also not needed?
> +};
> +
> +&cpu1 {
[...]
> +
> +/ {
> + thermal-zones {
The first /thermal-zones is located in sa8775p.dtsi. Should it have an
alias instead of referencing the whole node with the path? Using an
alias can help the reviewer check the previous node's information and
imply that it is an override rather than a newly added node.
> + cpu-0-1-0-thermal {
> + trips {
> + cpu_0_1_0_passive: trip-point1 {
It seems like a common attribute for cpu1-cpu7. Can it be a common trips
node that can be referenced by different cpu-*-*-*-thermal nodes?
--
Thx and BRs,
Aiqun(Maria) Yu
