Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: cpufreq: apple,soc-cpufreq: Add binding for Apple SoC cpufreq

[Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>]

On 28/11/2022 21.56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/11/2022 13:42, Hector Martin wrote:
>> 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).
>>
>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
>> ---
>>  .../cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml        | 117 ++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 117 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..a21271f73fc1
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/apple,cluster-cpufreq.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
>> +# 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
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> +  - Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
>> +
>> +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:
>> +          - oneOf:
> 
> This is enum.

Sigh. Every single time I think the changes are too simple and I
definitely don't need to run the DT checker this time.

I'll send a v5 shortly because this is just me being an idiot.

> Any other changes? Your cover letter say quite unspecific "minor review
> feedback"...

For the DT, the things you asked for ;) (this, dropping the reg
description, and the performance-controller thing).

- Hector