Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Please see my comments below:
>
> On 2019/11/10 4:11, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> The Amlogic Meson A1/C1 Secure Monitor implements calls to control power
>>> domain.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jianxin Pan <jianxin.pan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/firmware/meson/meson_sm.c | 2 ++
>>> include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
> [...]
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h b/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h
>>> index 6669e2a..4ed3989 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h
>>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ enum {
>>> SM_EFUSE_WRITE,
>>> SM_EFUSE_USER_MAX,
>>> SM_GET_CHIP_ID,
>>> + SM_PWRC_SET,
>>> + SM_PWRC_GET,
>>
>> These new IDs are unique to the A1/C1 family. Maybe we should add a
>> prefix to better indicate that. Maybe:
>>
>> SM_A1_PWRC_SET,
>> SM_A1_PWRC_GET,
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I consulted with the internal VLSI team, and it's likely that the latter new SOC will follow A1/C1.
> And then it may become common function in the future.
OK, but it's not a common function for the past, so it's useful to mark
that distinction.
Just like in device-tree, we often have compatibles named for previous
SoC families (e.g. "gxbb") used on newer SoCs, but we use that to mean
"GXBB or newer".
Similarily here, we can use SM_A1_ prefix to mean "A1 or newer.
Kevin
