On 11/07/2023 14:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > It makes zero (or less) sense to consume BCM voters per interconnect > provider. They are shared throughout the entire system and it's enough > to keep a single reference to each of them. > > Storing them in a shared array at fixed indices will let us improve both > the representation of the RPMh architecture (every RSC can hold a resource > vote on any bus, they're not limited in that regard) and save as much as > kilobytes worth of RAM. > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h > index cd34f36daaaa..9c13ef8a044e 100644 > --- a/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h > @@ -23,4 +23,12 @@ > #define QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS (QCOM_ICC_TAG_AMC | QCOM_ICC_TAG_WAKE |\ > QCOM_ICC_TAG_SLEEP) > > +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_APPS 0 > +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_DISP 1 > +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_CAM0 2 > +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_CAM1 3 > +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_CAM2 4 > + > +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_MAX 64 I proposed to skip the max. If you actually use it, you won't be able to change it ever. Best regards, Krzysztof
