On 11/07/2023 08:17, Rohit Agarwal wrote: > > On 7/11/2023 11:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 11/07/2023 07:42, Rohit Agarwal wrote: >>> Add Generic RPMh Power Domain indexes that can be used >>> for all the Qualcomm SoC henceforth. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Suggested-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h >>> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 0000000..4da2e04 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h >> Filename based on compatible. > This is not specific for SDX75. These are generic ones that should be > used for all other targets. > Konrad suggested in v1 to avoid target specific prefixes everytime and > to create a new generic > dt-bindings that can be reused. >>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */ >>> +/* >>> + * Copyright (c) 2023, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved. >>> + */ >>> + >>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_POWER_QCOM_RPMHPD_H >>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_POWER_QCOM_RPMHPD_H >>> + >>> +/* Generic RPMH Power Domain Indexes */ >>> +#define CX 0 >> These are very generic names, usually not used in global headers. Please >> use some reasonable prefix. > This was based on the suggestion from Konrad in v2 to drop the RPMHPD > prefix and we can go only with names like CX, etc. I don't think having so generic name in tree-wide header is good idea. CX can mean anything. Best regards, Krzysztof
