On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Amit Kucheria [off-list ref] wrote:

(Adding arm-soc folks)

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Amit,

Thanks for fixing this.

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:23:29PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:

quoted

The idle-states binding documentation[1] mentions that the
'entry-method' property is required on 64-bit platforms and must be
set to "psci".

commit a13f18f59d26 ("Documentation: arm: Fix typo in the idle-states
bindings examples") attempted to fix this earlier but clearly more is
needed.

In fact, I assumed I fixed things with commit 978fa436231a ("drivers:
firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems"),
but I was wrong. I left quite a few instances including juno dtbs.

quoted

Fix the cpu-capacity.txt documentation that uses the incorrect value so
we don't get copy-paste errors like these. Clarify the language in
idle-states.txt by removing the reference to the psci bindings that
might be causing this confusion.

Finally, fix devicetrees of various boards to reflect current
documentation.

[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt (see
idle-states node)

Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <redacted>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpu-capacity.txt | 2 +-
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt  | 4 ++--
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-r1.dts                    | 2 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-r2.dts                    | 2 +-
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno.dts                       | 2 +-

For all the above files,

Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <redacted>

Thanks for reviewing, Sudeep.

quoted

How do you plan to merge ? I prefer if you can send it via arm-soc as
fixes for this cycle with all the necessary acks. Otherwise you may have
to split this to send via platform maintainers which is bit mundane.

I was hoping to get this merged thru arm-soc tree instead of creating
a patch per platform. But if anybody feels strongly about it, I'm
happy to split them up and feed it through the platform maintainer
trees.

Given that we're at the tail end of the merge window, before -rc1,
it's easiest if we just take it directly and platform maintainers base
their new contents on top of it.

Applying to our next/late (i.e. merge-window-fixes) branch now.


-Olof