Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220309151541.139511-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> <20220309151541.139511-3-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220309151541.139511-3-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:10:14 +0530
Message-ID: <CAKohponOKCNFXUi6cyTOMV8Gd_erm4=2L9sFjgTs0+n0x5EmxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Convert to
 YAML bindings
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org,
        bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 at 20:45, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote:

> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.yaml
> +    soc {
> +      #address-cells = <1>;
> +      #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> +      cpufreq@17d43000 {
> +        compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw";
> +        reg = <0x17d43000 0x1400>, <0x17d45800 0x1400>;
> +        reg-names = "freq-domain0", "freq-domain1";
> +
> +        clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&gcc GPLL0>;
> +        clock-names = "xo", "alternate";
> +
> +        #freq-domain-cells = <1>;
> +      };
> +    };

Why didn't we migrate to #performance-domain-cells here ? We can keep
the kernel backward compatible to support old DT definitions, but won't it be
better to move to a more generic solution, now that we have one ?