On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:53:31AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 18.04.2024 1:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:02:54PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > >> Recent (SM8550+ ish) Qualcomm SoCs have a new mechanism for precisely > >> identifying the specific SKU and the precise speed bin (in the general > >> meaning of this word, anyway): a pair of values called Product Code > >> and Feature Code. > >> > >> Based on this information, we can deduce the available frequencies for > >> things such as Adreno. In the case of Adreno specifically, Pcode is > >> useless for non-prototype SoCs. > >> > >> Introduce a getter for the feature code and export it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > [...] > > >> +/* Internal feature codes */ > >> +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 0xf */ > >> +#define SOCINFO_FC_Yn(n) (0xf1 + n) > >> +#define SOCINFO_FC_INT_MAX SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10) > > > > This is 0x101 rather than 0x100 or 0xff. Is that expected? > > Yes, this is "the first invalid one", similar to ENUMNAME_NUM > > > > >> + > >> +/* Product codes */ > >> +#define SOCINFO_PC_UNKNOWN 0 > >> +#define SOCINFO_PCn(n) (n + 1) > >> +#define SOCINFO_PC_RESERVE (BIT(31) - 1) > > > > This patch works on fcodes, why do we have PCode defines here? > > I decided they're useful to keep.. Didn't want to split them to a separate > patch for no reason. Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> -- With best wishes Dmitry
