On 2021-09-29 18:12, Rob Herring wrote:

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:26 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

System Cache Controller (Last Level Cache Controller/LLCC) does not
have a cache-level associated with it as enforced by the already
existing 'cache-controller' node name, so add system-cache-controller
to the list of generic node names as decided on the lkml in [1][2]
and already being used in the dts for sometime now.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5dcd8588.1c69fb81.2528a.3460@mx.google.com/ (local)
[2] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1573814758.git.saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org/ (local)

Cc: Stephen Boyd <redacted>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <redacted>
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <redacted>
---
 source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst 

b/source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst
index 40be22192b2f..c06c5063c68b 100644

--- a/source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst
+++ b/source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst

@@ -276,6 +276,7 @@ name should be one of the following choices:
    * sram-controller
    * ssi-controller
    * syscon
+   * system-cache-controller

I don't want to encourage others to use this over 'cache-controller'
and the standard binding.

Right, but why would others use this over cache-controller? This is 
supposed
to be used only for last level cache controllers where there is no 
cache-level
associated with it like in the system cache controller/LLCC found in QTI 
SoCs.
Also you had acked the corresponding change in the DT binding for LLCC 
[1].

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191203172235.GA18507@bogus/ (local)

Thanks,
Sai

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a 
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation