On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:05:30PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 4/11/24 20:55, Elliot Berman wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:29AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > In preparation for parsing the chip "feature code" (FC) and "product > > > code" (PC) (essentially the parameters that let us conclusively > > > characterize the sillicon we're running on, including various speed > > > bins), move the socinfo version defines to the public header and > > > include some more FC/PC defines. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > [...] > > > > + SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE, > > > +}; > > > > SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE was a convenient limit since we mapped > > SOCINFO_FC_AA -> string "AA" via an array, and we've only needed the 8 > > feature codes so far. > > > > We should remove the EXT_RESERVE and test for the Y0-YF (internal > > feature code) values instead. > > OK > > > > > > + > > > +/* Internal feature codes */ > > > +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 0xf */ > > > +#define SOCINFO_FC_Yn(n) (0xf1 + n) > > > +#define SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10) > > > > We probably should've named this SOCINFO_FC_INT_MAX. Reserve implies > > it's reserved for some future use, but it's really the max value it > > could be. > > So, should SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10) also be considered valid, or is (0xf) > the last one? > 0xf is the last one. Thanks, Elliot > > > > > + > > > +/* Product codes */ > > > +#define SOCINFO_PC_UNKNOWN 0 > > > +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 8, the rest is reserved */ > > > +#define SOCINFO_PCn(n) (n + 1) > > > +#define SOCINFO_PC_RESERVE (BIT(31) - 1) > > > > Similar comments here as the SOCINFO_FC_EXT_*. It's more like known > > values are [0,8], but more values could come in future chipsets. > > Ok, sounds good, I'll remove the comment then > > Konrad
