Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] Initial Apple M3 Pro, Max and Ultra device trees

Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.linux-i2c,dev.linux.lists.asahi,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.