On 12/21/2016 4:20 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 12/18, Imran Khan wrote: >> >> I had discussed this with Bjorn and it was recommended to keep it out of >> smem.h. If needed I can move it back there. > > Ok no worries from me then if this has already been discussed. > >> >> Yes. The numbers used here can have different meaning for different ODMs. >> But these attributes (hw_patform type/subtype etc.) are outside the >> generic soc_device_attribute so I think the interpretation of these numbers >> can very well be ODM specific. We can try to keep only those types here that >> are relevant for newer platforms but we intend to keep these attributes >> nonetheless. > > I'll wait to see what the next patch version has. We will > probably need to have some way to know which ODM the kernel is > running on, so we can interpret the platform type/subtype fields > properly. That part seems to be lacking from this patch right > now. We assume it's always qcom as the ODM, which isn't true. > Now I get this point. So far we don't have any mechanism in the driver that gives ODM information. As far as generic soc_device_attribute's vendor field is concerned we use Qualcomm since this will be true for SoC. For hardware type and sub-types the various relevant values in SMEM are numeric values and indeed it would be very difficult to estimate how some other ODM will use the same number. So for the h/w types and sub-types can we keep the numeric values rather than showing strings as attribute values. We can leave the interpretation of these values to ODM specific code. Will wait for your feedback so that I can take care of it accordingly in the next patch set. Regards, Imran -- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a\nmember of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
