On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 12:56:19AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Implement the support for SAW v4.1, used in at least MSM8998,
> SDM630, SDM660 and APQ variants and, while at it, also add the
> configuration for the SDM630/660 Silver and Gold cluster L2
> Adaptive Voltage Scaler: this is also one of the prerequisites
> to allow the OSM controller to perform DCVS.
>
> Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> include/soc/qcom/spm.h | 4 +++-
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c
> [...]
> static const struct of_device_id spm_match_table[] = {
> + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm660-gold-saw2-v4.1-l2",
> + .data = &spm_reg_660_gold_l2 },
> + { .compatible = "qcom,sdm660-silver-saw2-v4.1-l2",
> + .data = &spm_reg_660_silver_l2 },
I think we need some dt-bindings patches for these? :)
Also, like I mentioned on v4 I still think a short comment in commit
message or file with the reason why you don't want the change qcom did
in [1] would be appropriate here. You can just use what you
already mentioned in your reply in v4 (the random lockups).
Because otherwise it's not obvious why someone else shouldn't "make this
consistent with qcom's values" sometime later and then suddenly you get
the random lockups again.
Thanks,
Stephan
