+ Stephan Gerhold On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 18:50, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 11:23 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 15:09, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 5:37 AM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 05:06, Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The "power-domains" and "power-domains-names" properties are missing any > > > > > constraints. Add the constraints and drop the generic descriptions. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml | 8 ++------ > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml > > > > > index 6f74ebfd38df..5bd5822db8af 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml > > > > > @@ -313,19 +313,15 @@ properties: > > > > > maxItems: 1 > > > > > > > > > > power-domains: > > > > > - description: > > > > > - List of phandles and PM domain specifiers, as defined by bindings of the > > > > > - PM domain provider (see also ../power_domain.txt). > > > > > + maxItems: 1 > > > > > > > > There are more than one in some cases. The most is probably three, I think. > > > > > > Unless I missed it, testing says otherwise. What would the names be if > > > more than 1 entry? > > > > "psci", "perf", "cpr", etc > > > > The "psci" is always for CPU power management, the other is for CPU > > performance scaling (which may be more than one power-domain in some > > cases). > > > > I would suggest changing this to "maxItems: 3". That should be > > sufficient I think. > > Again, my testing says 1 is enough. So where is a .dts file with 3 or 2? Right! I assume those with 3 or 2 just haven't made it upstream yet, but sure they are cases. If you prefer to update the binding later, that's fine by me, but I just wanted to avoid unnecessary churns for you. For example, msm8916 seems to be one case that already uses "psci", but requires an additional two power-domains for performance-scaling. At least according to earlier discussions [1] with Stephan Gerhold. Moreover, it's perfectly fine to also describe CPU's idle-states by using the power-domains/domain-idle-states DT bindings, according to the bindings for PSCI [2] (no matter of PSCI OSI/PC mode). In other words, for all those that only have a "perf" or "cpr" power-domain today (or whatever name is used for the performance-scaling domain), those could easily add a "psci" power-domain too, depending on how they choose to describe things in DT. Kind regards Uffe [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZRcC2IRRv6dtKY65@xxxxxxxxxxx/ [2] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/psci.yaml
