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. Konrad
