[PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[Ulf Hansson]

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

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[Sudeep Holla]

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

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[Ulf Hansson]

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

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[Rob Herring]

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

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[Sudeep Holla]

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

Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Update examples for protocol@13

[Sudeep Holla]

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