On 25/10/2022 13:22, Hector Martin wrote:

On 26/10/2022 01.01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 24/10/2022 00:39, Hector Martin wrote:

quoted

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).

Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <redacted>
---
 .../cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml        | 119 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 119 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..b11452f91468
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# 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

Few nits, in general looks fine to me.

quoted

+
+maintainers:
+  - Hector Martin [off-list ref]
+
+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:
+          - const: apple,t8103-cluster-cpufreq
+          - const: apple,cluster-cpufreq
+      - items:
+          - const: apple,t6000-cluster-cpufreq
+          - const: apple,t8103-cluster-cpufreq
+          - const: apple,cluster-cpufreq
+      - items:
+          - const: apple,t8112-cluster-cpufreq

With the first one (t8103) - it's an enum.

This is deliberate. t6000 is compatible with t8103, but t8112 is not
(though all are compatible with what the generic apple,cluster-cpufreq
compatible implies).

I was not talking about t6000. I was talking about two entries - first
and last - which should be just an enum. There is no compatibility, so
what is here deliberate? To not make enum things which are an enum?

Best regards,
Krzysztof


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel