* [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-03 11:11 ` Ulf Hansson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Hansson @ 2024-04-03 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla, Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski
Cc: Ulf Hansson, devicetree, linux-arm-kernel
Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
let's update the examples.
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
index 4591523b51a0..93fb7d05f849 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ examples:
scmi_dvfs: protocol@13 {
reg = <0x13>;
- #clock-cells = <1>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
mboxes = <&mhuB 1 0>,
<&mhuB 1 1>;
@@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ examples:
reg = <0x13>;
linaro,optee-channel-id = <1>;
shmem = <&cpu_optee_lpri0>;
- #clock-cells = <1>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
};
scmi_clk0: protocol@14 {
--
2.34.1
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-03 11:11 ` Ulf Hansson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Hansson @ 2024-04-03 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla, Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski
Cc: Ulf Hansson, devicetree, linux-arm-kernel
Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
let's update the examples.
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
index 4591523b51a0..93fb7d05f849 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/arm,scmi.yaml
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ examples:
scmi_dvfs: protocol@13 {
reg = <0x13>;
- #clock-cells = <1>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
mboxes = <&mhuB 1 0>,
<&mhuB 1 1>;
@@ -468,7 +468,7 @@ examples:
reg = <0x13>;
linaro,optee-channel-id = <1>;
shmem = <&cpu_optee_lpri0>;
- #clock-cells = <1>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
};
scmi_clk0: protocol@14 {
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
2024-04-03 11:11 ` Ulf Hansson
@ 2024-04-03 13:53 ` Sudeep Holla
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2024-04-03 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulf Hansson
Cc: Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> let's update the examples.
>
Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
suggestions.
Other than that,
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
--
Regards,
Sudeep
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-03 13:53 ` Sudeep Holla
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2024-04-03 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulf Hansson
Cc: Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> let's update the examples.
>
Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
suggestions.
Other than that,
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
--
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
2024-04-03 13:53 ` Sudeep Holla
@ 2024-04-04 10:52 ` Ulf Hansson
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Hansson @ 2024-04-04 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla
Cc: Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> > let's update the examples.
> >
>
> Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
> mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
> lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
> suggestions.
I am certainly fine with either way!
However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road,
maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That
said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update
to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean
we get a nice reference for how to use this too.
>
> Other than that,
>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
Kind regards
Uffe
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-04 10:52 ` Ulf Hansson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ulf Hansson @ 2024-04-04 10:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sudeep Holla
Cc: Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> > let's update the examples.
> >
>
> Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
> mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
> lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
> suggestions.
I am certainly fine with either way!
However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road,
maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That
said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update
to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean
we get a nice reference for how to use this too.
>
> Other than that,
>
> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep
Kind regards
Uffe
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
2024-04-04 10:52 ` Ulf Hansson
@ 2024-04-10 11:56 ` Rob Herring
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2024-04-10 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulf Hansson
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Cristian Marussi, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> > > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> > > let's update the examples.
> > >
> >
> > Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
> > mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
> > lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
> > suggestions.
>
> I am certainly fine with either way!
>
> However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road,
> maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That
> said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update
> to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean
> we get a nice reference for how to use this too.
>
> >
> > Other than that,
> >
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>
> Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going?
Please take via SCMI tree.
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-10 11:56 ` Rob Herring
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Rob Herring @ 2024-04-10 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulf Hansson
Cc: Sudeep Holla, Cristian Marussi, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> > > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> > > let's update the examples.
> > >
> >
> > Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
> > mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
> > lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
> > suggestions.
>
> I am certainly fine with either way!
>
> However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road,
> maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That
> said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update
> to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean
> we get a nice reference for how to use this too.
>
> >
> > Other than that,
> >
> > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>
> Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going?
Please take via SCMI tree.
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
2024-04-10 11:56 ` Rob Herring
@ 2024-04-10 12:35 ` Sudeep Holla
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2024-04-10 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Herring
Cc: Ulf Hansson, Cristian Marussi, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:56:37AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> > > > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> > > > let's update the examples.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
> > > mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
> > > lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
> > > suggestions.
> >
> > I am certainly fine with either way!
> >
> > However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road,
> > maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That
> > said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update
> > to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean
> > we get a nice reference for how to use this too.
> >
> > >
> > > Other than that,
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> > Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going?
>
Sorry Ulf, this slipped through the cracks, will queue it.
> Please take via SCMI tree.
>
Sure
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Thanks
--
Regards,
Sudeep
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-10 12:35 ` Sudeep Holla
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2024-04-10 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Herring
Cc: Ulf Hansson, Cristian Marussi, Krzysztof Kozlowski, devicetree,
linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 06:56:37AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 15:53, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> > > > as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> > > > let's update the examples.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Does it make sense to keep one DVFS example with #clock-cells until we
> > > mark it as deprecated ? Otherwise it may be confusing as the binding still
> > > lists. Or leave some comment in the example or something, I am open for
> > > suggestions.
> >
> > I am certainly fine with either way!
> >
> > However, if we intend to make #clock-cells deprecated down the road,
> > maybe it's better to start avoiding the use of it already now. That
> > said, what do you think of following up $subject patch with an update
> > to Juno's dts(i) to move to #power-domains-cells too? That would mean
> > we get a nice reference for how to use this too.
> >
> > >
> > > Other than that,
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >
> > Are you picking this via your scmi tree, or which route is this going?
>
Sorry Ulf, this slipped through the cracks, will queue it.
> Please take via SCMI tree.
>
Sure
> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Thanks
--
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
2024-04-03 11:11 ` Ulf Hansson
@ 2024-04-18 10:04 ` Sudeep Holla
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2024-04-18 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Ulf Hansson
Cc: Sudeep Holla, devicetree, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 13:11:06 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> let's update the examples.
>
Applied to sudeep.holla/linux (for-next/scmi/updates), thanks!
[1/1] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
https://git.kernel.org/sudeep.holla/c/4625810361d6
--
Regards,
Sudeep
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
@ 2024-04-18 10:04 ` Sudeep Holla
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Sudeep Holla @ 2024-04-18 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cristian Marussi, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Ulf Hansson
Cc: Sudeep Holla, devicetree, linux-arm-kernel
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 13:11:06 +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Recently we extended the binding for protocol@13 to allow it to be modelled
> as a generic performance domain. In a way to promote using the new binding,
> let's update the examples.
>
Applied to sudeep.holla/linux (for-next/scmi/updates), thanks!
[1/1] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13
https://git.kernel.org/sudeep.holla/c/4625810361d6
--
Regards,
Sudeep
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-18 10:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2024-04-03 11:11 [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13 Ulf Hansson
2024-04-03 11:11 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-04-03 13:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-04-03 13:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-04-04 10:52 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-04-04 10:52 ` Ulf Hansson
2024-04-10 11:56 ` Rob Herring
2024-04-10 11:56 ` Rob Herring
2024-04-10 12:35 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-04-10 12:35 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-04-18 10:04 ` Sudeep Holla
2024-04-18 10:04 ` Sudeep Holla
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.