On 31/01/2025 14:27, Sudeep Holla wrote:

quoted

quoted

[snip]
 > +		l3_cache_cl0: l3-cache0 {
You can add one node for cl0 and cl1, say "l3_cache_cl0_cl1" and
Remove the specific node for CL1, because both are same.

What do you mean by "both are same" ?
Do you mean both have exact same properties but are physically different
caches ? OR
Do you mean it is just one shared cache ?

If former, we still need distinct node to get the cacheinfo about
shareability correct. If this is about avoiding duplication of errors,
you can probably define some macro and avoid it, but we need 2 nodes in
the devicetree.

If latter, you suggestion is correct.

No answers here, so I drop this patch from my queue.

Best regards,
Krzysztof