On 7/5/2023 4:13 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 5.07.2023 10:54, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
On 7/4/2023 11:47 AM, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
On 7/3/2023 8:29 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 3.07.2023 16:42, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
Add RPM power domain bindings for the SDX75 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 1 +
include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml
index afad313..58e1be8 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ properties:
- qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd
- qcom,sdx55-rpmhpd
- qcom,sdx65-rpmhpd
+ - qcom,sdx75-rpmhpd
- qcom,sm6115-rpmpd
- qcom,sm6125-rpmpd
- qcom,sm6350-rpmhpd
diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
index 1bf8e87..8092d0d 100644
--- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
@@ -57,6 +57,14 @@
#define SDX65_CX_AO 4
#define SDX65_MXC 5
+/* SDX75 Power Domain Indexes */
+#define SDX75_CX 0
+#define SDX75_CX_AO 1
+#define SDX75_MSS 2
+#define SDX75_MX 3
+#define SDX75_MX_AO 4
+#define SDX75_MXC 5
Please instead introduce a set of defines without the SoC prefix
(i.e. CX, CX_AO, MX etc.). We've been putting this off for too long
and you're the first unlucky guy that submitted new RPMhPD support after
we've concluded it'd be the way to go! :D Sadly, we can't replace the
existing ones retroactively..
Surely No issues. Will update it.
I have a doubt here. Cant we completely omit the #defines here and directly index this as 0,1,...
because if the intention of this #defines is to understand the name of the pd then we can get
it from the .name attribute in rpmhpd as well, right?
The problems with a common set of #define would be, lets say if we define CX_AO as 1 and some platform
doesn't have CX_AO then wouldnt it leave a null entry in the driver entry of that platform?
Yes.
We already do this in the rpmh clock driver, as:
1. there are domains that all chips share (like CX etc.)
2. wasting a couple of bytes lets us massively save on convolution
Ok, got it. Looks cleaner.
Thanks,
Rohit.
Konrad
Thanks,
Rohit.
Thanks,
Rohit.
Konrad
+
/* SM6350 Power Domain Indexes */
#define SM6350_CX 0
#define SM6350_GFX 1
