On 5.07.2023 10:54, Rohit Agarwal wrote: > > On 7/4/2023 11:47 AM, Rohit Agarwal wrote: >> >> On 7/3/2023 8:29 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 3.07.2023 16:42, Rohit Agarwal wrote: >>>> Add RPM power domain bindings for the SDX75 SoC. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 1 + >>>> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 8 ++++++++ >>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>>> index afad313..58e1be8 100644 >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ properties: >>>> - qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd >>>> - qcom,sdx55-rpmhpd >>>> - qcom,sdx65-rpmhpd >>>> + - qcom,sdx75-rpmhpd >>>> - qcom,sm6115-rpmpd >>>> - qcom,sm6125-rpmpd >>>> - qcom,sm6350-rpmhpd >>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>>> index 1bf8e87..8092d0d 100644 >>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>>> @@ -57,6 +57,14 @@ >>>> #define SDX65_CX_AO 4 >>>> #define SDX65_MXC 5 >>>> +/* SDX75 Power Domain Indexes */ >>>> +#define SDX75_CX 0 >>>> +#define SDX75_CX_AO 1 >>>> +#define SDX75_MSS 2 >>>> +#define SDX75_MX 3 >>>> +#define SDX75_MX_AO 4 >>>> +#define SDX75_MXC 5 >>> Please instead introduce a set of defines without the SoC prefix >>> (i.e. CX, CX_AO, MX etc.). We've been putting this off for too long >>> and you're the first unlucky guy that submitted new RPMhPD support after >>> we've concluded it'd be the way to go! :D Sadly, we can't replace the >>> existing ones retroactively.. >> Surely No issues. Will update it. > > I have a doubt here. Cant we completely omit the #defines here and directly index this as 0,1,... > because if the intention of this #defines is to understand the name of the pd then we can get > it from the .name attribute in rpmhpd as well, right? > > The problems with a common set of #define would be, lets say if we define CX_AO as 1 and some platform > doesn't have CX_AO then wouldnt it leave a null entry in the driver entry of that platform? Yes. We already do this in the rpmh clock driver, as: 1. there are domains that all chips share (like CX etc.) 2. wasting a couple of bytes lets us massively save on convolution Konrad > > Thanks, > Rohit. > >> >> Thanks, >> Rohit. >>> Konrad >>>> + >>>> /* SM6350 Power Domain Indexes */ >>>> #define SM6350_CX 0 >>>> #define SM6350_GFX 1
