From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sendmail.purelymail.com (sendmail.purelymail.com [34.202.193.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C41AD224FD for ; Sun, 5 Jan 2025 12:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736079525; cv=none; b=PsAUwwe8sb8ykZTudFzcqv9MhLrNe7jRB+V7wv4WYU2JJ+40g60+ThnUc9UhSek7t3RazdSReJ2IvziqguHHWaFwK4GNnZfQYNq4G0VsXiHegIyn093N2a72JdPFHlk5o/Mzz9zJt/z1HJqnvaE7uudH0xEHBRcFZu/kQJT3vy8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736079525; c=relaxed/simple; bh=75ZZPQPJDwbcguFEzst3gHnA+GRgtEJMBotKkjqpuj4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CXBNsyizKKwP+lj8q0d6hgL2cEoTHSy1TBx69TDQ8Ove9m371f1H0XsfLb4YENjN7I7odR0gqL44nNHes/MdgDn+t5L4JZcA7NYxfV7gIwkflUNjj7ToSZgXoELVc4IGrC5+BMsLZ59eujfiahfI862GVLIk7IXIbWTqS+l+7XQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mentallysanemainliners.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentallysanemainliners.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b=egP4n2ym; arc=none smtp.client-ip=34.202.193.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=mentallysanemainliners.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentallysanemainliners.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=purelymail.com header.i=@purelymail.com header.b="egP4n2ym" DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=egP4n2ym2pyY0NZ6nIdTZabBoHDfJXlnIdxrsC6oxZAJpmWWgvDeHLaM+N3cBN1HAWWumtJ9yRYUCv4kr8EpYVXX/+wppYAbbPnPemDqBeHfqi0eYjETMd+dbRbCLg/TeloC7SJHQtYBSiJ1ddW35CxYjyKzHClO95nu7u5UXL6nXK9jyvYt2GNbKxTTmWQ7CrGlUx3zEY+tGp79N1K6fBq86K/6WyRpDRUmIHGOBwH2X7IKjrkbmibBO55d+1SOttauVHgHQ4VuGCYbAPKSBYFAd+kut4XB825rAaQjJh2F+jKYlIz1nUL9p8o0jy0/OsE5FK8SBo1br52xsjoGXA==; s=purelymail3; d=purelymail.com; v=1; bh=75ZZPQPJDwbcguFEzst3gHnA+GRgtEJMBotKkjqpuj4=; h=Feedback-ID:Received:Date:From:To:Subject; Feedback-ID: 68247:10037:null:purelymail X-Pm-Original-To: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Received: by smtp.purelymail.com (Purelymail SMTP) with ESMTPSA id 2020578906; (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); Sun, 05 Jan 2025 12:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 13:18:24 +0100 From: Igor Belwon To: Markuss Broks Cc: Ivaylo Ivanov , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Alim Akhtar , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: exynos990: Rename and sort PMU nodes Message-ID: References: <20250105-pmu-sorting-v1-1-b55519eaff2e@mentallysanemainliners.org> <6b66b484-badb-4a99-b19f-5cab019cc5ea@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6b66b484-badb-4a99-b19f-5cab019cc5ea@gmail.com> On Sun, Jan 05, 2025 at 02:10:37PM +0200, Markuss Broks wrote: Hi Markuss, > Hi Igor, > > On 1/5/25 2:03 PM, Igor Belwon wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 05, 2025 at 01:39:04PM +0200, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote: > > > On 1/5/25 13:16, Igor Belwon wrote: > > > > These nodes were sorted by name, but it's nice to have the same class of > > > > devices together. As such, drop the pmu suffix and add "pmu" as a prefix. > > > > This keeps consistency between other Exynos SoCs too. > > > Well, most SoC device trees still have it as a suffix. Perhaps it'd be better to > > > apply this change for all exynos device trees instead of waiting for other > > > people to apply it separately? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Ivaylo > > Hi Ivaylo, > > > > The newly-merged 9810 SoC had it hand-fixed by Krzysztof while being > > merged [1], and there is a current patch to fix it on 8895 [2]. > > That's all the SoCs with Mongoose cores (and the Mongoose PMU breaks > > sorting). Only 990 is missing this change. > I believe for Cortex PMUs it's also preferred to use the e.g. pmu-a53 name > instead of arm-a53-pmu. This name is at least also used on exynosautov9, > exynosautov920, exynos7885, exynos5433 and exynos7 (list not conclusive). So > maybe could fix it on all SoCs at once, instead of making individual patches > for every one. This is just a suggestion though, your patch seems ok. Thank you for the suggestion! I held off on doing this because in the 8895 patch, Krzysztof said that the pure-ARM design PMU naming was too trivial and unimportant to change. Mongoose PMU however breaks sorting in the tree, so unlike the arm-pmus, it's more important. It's up to Krzysztof if he wishes a global change for all affected Exynos trees. > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/d1c6d2f2-f733-4cbe-8108-c9c9aaa417cc@kernel.org/ > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20241222145257.31451-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/ > > > > Thanks and best regards, > > Igor > > > > - Markuss > Best regards, Igor