Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Initial Apple M3 Pro, Max and Ultra device trees

[Sven Peter <sven@kernel.org>]

On 7/15/26 17:55, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 7/15/26 02:11, Janne Grunau wrote:
>> This series adds device trees for Apple silicon devices with M3 Pro, Max
>> and Ultra SoCs. The M3 generation has fewer devices than their M1 and M2
>> predecessors. The only non-laptop device is the M3 Ultra Mac Studio. The
>> Laptops are the known 14 and 16-inch Macbook Pros now with M3 Pro and
>> M3 Max SoCs. The M3 Max variant with fewer CPU and GPU cores has
>> additionally only a 384-bit wide memory bus instead of 512-bit of the
>> full M3 Max. It has a separate identifier (T6034) and so there are six
>> laptop device trees.
>> Another difference to M1 and M2 Pro/Max/Ultra is that the M3 Pro is
>> distinct SoC design and not a smaller M3 Max. For this reason both M3
>> Max variants and the M3 Ultra will use "apple,t6030" as compatible
>> prefix. In the M1 and M2 generations Pro, Max and Ultra SoCs shared
>> "apple,t6000" / "apple,t6020" as common prefix. There is currently no
>> known difference but M3 Pro and M3 Max are not as closely related as
>> previously.
>>
>> This series adds the same level of hardware as the base M3 (T8122) has
>> in v7.2-rc1. This includes CPU cores, interrupt controller, power
>> states, watchdog, serial, pin controller, i2c and the boot framebuffer.
>> This is intended as base so that support for additional hardware can be
>> added to all M3 based devices at the same time.
>>
>> Merge strategy:
>> Since the dt-binding add new compatible strings without driver changes
>> it would be preferred if the whole [1] series would be merged through
>> apple-soc/arm-soc. This will help ensuring a warning free
>> `make dtbs_check` for followup series with additional M3* hardware
>> support I hope to send for this cycle.
>>
>> This series will conflict with the M4 series [3] sent A couple of days
>> ago. I would prefer if this could be merged first (in order of SoC
>> release).
>>
>> [1]: I see that the M4 watchdog change was already picked up by Guenter
>>       in [2]
>>
>
> Whatever one does with individual patches in such series seems to be
> wrong. Are you saying that I should drop the M4 (t8132) patch from
> the watchdog-next branch ?

Feel free to keep it. I'll just pick up everything that's left once this 
series is ready and make sure there are no duplicate patches in -next.


Sven