linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: cpufreq: apple,soc-cpufreq: Add binding for Apple SoC cpufreq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bcf5ef3c-a17d-e174-2b97-cef4d728cb35@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2022 10:13:05 -0400
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Cc:     Sven Peter <sven@...npeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>, asahi@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: cpufreq: apple,soc-cpufreq: Add
 binding for Apple SoC cpufreq

On 26/10/2022 00:18, Hector Martin wrote:
>>>> With the first one (t8103) - it's an enum.
>>>
>>> This is deliberate. t6000 is compatible with t8103, but t8112 is not
>>> (though all are compatible with what the generic apple,cluster-cpufreq
>>> compatible implies).
>>
>> I was not talking about t6000. I was talking about two entries - first
>> and last - which should be just an enum. There is no compatibility, so
>> what is here deliberate? To not make enum things which are an enum?
> 
> Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. You mean that the two entries
> should be merged, with an enum for the first item listing both SoCs, right?

Yes

Best regards,
Krzysztof