Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: Fix various entry-method properties to reflect documentation

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:02 PM, Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (Adding arm-soc folks)
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 9:01 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Amit,
>>
>> Thanks for fixing this.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 02:23:29PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>>> The idle-states binding documentation[1] mentions that the
>>> 'entry-method' property is required on 64-bit platforms and must be
>>> set to "psci".
>>>
>>> commit a13f18f59d26 ("Documentation: arm: Fix typo in the idle-states
>>> bindings examples") attempted to fix this earlier but clearly more is
>>> needed.
>>>
>>
>> In fact, I assumed I fixed things with commit 978fa436231a ("drivers:
>> firmware: psci: unify enable-method binding on ARM {64,32}-bit systems"),
>> but I was wrong. I left quite a few instances including juno dtbs.
>>
>>> Fix the cpu-capacity.txt documentation that uses the incorrect value so
>>> we don't get copy-paste errors like these. Clarify the language in
>>> idle-states.txt by removing the reference to the psci bindings that
>>> might be causing this confusion.
>>>
>>> Finally, fix devicetrees of various boards to reflect current
>>> documentation.
>>>
>>> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt (see
>>> idle-states node)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpu-capacity.txt | 2 +-
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt  | 4 ++--
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-r1.dts                    | 2 +-
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-r2.dts                    | 2 +-
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno.dts                       | 2 +-
>>
>> For all the above files,
>>
>> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for reviewing, Sudeep.
>
>> How do you plan to merge ? I prefer if you can send it via arm-soc as
>> fixes for this cycle with all the necessary acks. Otherwise you may have
>> to split this to send via platform maintainers which is bit mundane.
>
> I was hoping to get this merged thru arm-soc tree instead of creating
> a patch per platform. But if anybody feels strongly about it, I'm
> happy to split them up and feed it through the platform maintainer
> trees.

Given that we're at the tail end of the merge window, before -rc1,
it's easiest if we just take it directly and platform maintainers base
their new contents on top of it.

Applying to our next/late (i.e. merge-window-fixes) branch now.


-Olof