Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: power: Add rpm power domains for SDX75

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 7/5/2023 4:13 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
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
Ok, got it. Looks cleaner.

Thanks,
Rohit.

Konrad
Thanks,
Rohit.

Thanks,
Rohit.
Konrad
+
   /* SM6350 Power Domain Indexes */
   #define SM6350_CX    0
   #define SM6350_GFX    1



[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux