Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Initial Apple M3 Pro, Max and Ultra device trees
Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Jul 2026 08:55:24 -0700
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.asahi,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-i2c,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pwm,org.kernel.vger.linux-watchdog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 7/15/26 02:11, Janne Grunau wrote: > This series adds device trees for Apple silicon devices with M3 Pro, Max > and Ultra SoCs. The M3 generation has fewer devices than their M1 and M2 > predecessors. The only non-laptop device is the M3 Ultra Mac Studio. The > Laptops are the known 14 and 16-inch Macbook Pros now with M3 Pro and > M3 Max SoCs. The M3 Max variant with fewer CPU and GPU cores has > additionally only a 384-bit wide memory bus instead of 512-bit of the > full M3 Max. It has a separate identifier (T6034) and so there are six > laptop device trees. > Another difference to M1 and M2 Pro/Max/Ultra is that the M3 Pro is > distinct SoC design and not a smaller M3 Max. For this reason both M3 > Max variants and the M3 Ultra will use "apple,t6030" as compatible > prefix. In the M1 and M2 generations Pro, Max and Ultra SoCs shared > "apple,t6000" / "apple,t6020" as common prefix. There is currently no > known difference but M3 Pro and M3 Max are not as closely related as > previously. > > This series adds the same level of hardware as the base M3 (T8122) has > in v7.2-rc1. This includes CPU cores, interrupt controller, power > states, watchdog, serial, pin controller, i2c and the boot framebuffer. > This is intended as base so that support for additional hardware can be > added to all M3 based devices at the same time. > > Merge strategy: > Since the dt-binding add new compatible strings without driver changes > it would be preferred if the whole [1] series would be merged through > apple-soc/arm-soc. This will help ensuring a warning free > `make dtbs_check` for followup series with additional M3* hardware > support I hope to send for this cycle. > > This series will conflict with the M4 series [3] sent A couple of days > ago. I would prefer if this could be merged first (in order of SoC > release). > > [1]: I see that the M4 watchdog change was already picked up by Guenter > in [2] > Whatever one does with individual patches in such series seems to be wrong. Are you saying that I should drop the M4 (t8132) patch from the watchdog-next branch ? Guenter