On Jun 12, 2024 at 18:17:35 -0500, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> More speed grades for the AM62Px SoC family have been defined which
> unfortunately no longer align with the AM62x table. So create a new
> table with these new speed grades defined for the AM62Px
>
> Signed-off-by: Bryan Brattlof <bb@xxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> index a80698f3cfe65..6c84562de5c6b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ enum {
> #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_R_MPU_OPP BIT(1)
> #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_V_MPU_OPP BIT(2)
>
> +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_O_MPU_OPP 15
> +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_S_MPU_OPP 19
> +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_U_MPU_OPP 21
> +
> +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP BIT(0)
> +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_U_MPU_OPP BIT(2)
> +
> #define VERSION_COUNT 2
>
> struct ti_cpufreq_data;
> @@ -134,6 +141,23 @@ static unsigned long omap3_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> return BIT(efuse);
> }
>
> +static unsigned long am62p5_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> + unsigned long efuse)
> +{
> + unsigned long calc_efuse = AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP;
This and he earlier patch, why not continue using the name convention
calculated_efuse like in am625 and dra ?
> +
> + switch (efuse) {
> + case AM62P5_EFUSE_U_MPU_OPP:
> + case AM62P5_EFUSE_S_MPU_OPP:
> + calc_efuse |= AM62P5_SUPPORT_U_MPU_OPP;
> + fallthrough;
> + case AM62P5_EFUSE_O_MPU_OPP:
> + calc_efuse |= AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP;
> + }
> +
> + return calc_efuse;
> +}
> +
> static unsigned long am62a7_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> unsigned long efuse)
Otherwise, Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@xxxxxx>
--
Best regards,
Dhruva
