linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: qcom-rpm: Add support for pm8018 RPM Regulator

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2016 08:52:07 -0700
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
To:	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@...libre.com>
Cc:	linus.walleij@...aro.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
	andy.gross@...aro.org, david.brown@...aro.org,
	lee.jones@...aro.org, lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
	a.zummo@...ertech.it, alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
	rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mfd: qcom-rpm: Add support for pm8018 RPM Regulator

On Wed 22 Jun 01:34 PDT 2016, Neil Armstrong wrote:

> On 06/22/2016 07:23 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Fri 17 Jun 03:22 PDT 2016, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > 
> > [..]
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/qcom_rpm.c b/drivers/mfd/qcom_rpm.c
> > [..]
> >> +
> >> +static const struct qcom_rpm_data mdm9615_template = {
> >> +	.version = 3,
> >> +	.resource_table = mdm9615_rpm_resource_table,
> >> +	.n_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(mdm9615_rpm_resource_table),
> >> +};
> > 
> > Please see:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9177159/
> > 
> > You should set the new .sel_size to 4 here, please either rebase ontop
> > of Linus patch or send an update after both are merged.
> > 
> >> +
> >>  static const struct of_device_id qcom_rpm_of_match[] = {
> >>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,rpm-apq8064", .data = &apq8064_template },
> >>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,rpm-msm8660", .data = &msm8660_template },
> >>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,rpm-msm8960", .data = &msm8960_template },
> >>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,rpm-ipq8064", .data = &ipq806x_template },
> >> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,rpm-mdm9615", .data = &mdm9615_template },
> >>  	{ }
> >>  };
> >>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_rpm_of_match);
> >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.h b/include/dt-bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.h
> >> index 13a9d4b..db85912 100644
> >> --- a/include/dt-bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.h
> >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/mfd/qcom-rpm.h
> >> @@ -148,6 +148,29 @@
> >>  #define QCOM_RPM_SMB208_S2a			138
> >>  #define QCOM_RPM_SMB208_S2b			139
> >>  
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_SMPS1			200
> > 
> > These numbers are a logical identifier and as such you shouldn't skip
> > 140-199.
> > 
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_SMPS2			201
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_SMPS3			202
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_SMPS4			203
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_SMPS5			204
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO1			205
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO2			206
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO3			207
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO4			208
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO5			209
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO6			210
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO7			211
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO8			212
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO9			213
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO10			214
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO11			215
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO12			216
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO13			217
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LDO14			218
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_PM8018_LVS1			219
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_NCP				220
> > 
> > We already have PM8921_NCP and PM8058_NCP, so better make this
> > QCOM_RPM_PM8018_NCP for consistency.
> > 
> >> +#define QCOM_RPM_VOLTAGE_CORNER			221
> >> +
> > 
> > Other then these details
> > Acked-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> > 
> Thanks,
> 
> I rebased on Linus two patches ("fix offset error for msm8660" and "parametrize also ack selector size")
> 
> I suppose I should also drop the QCOM_RPM_VOLTAGE_CORNER rpm entry also ?

The open question is how we expose the corner to client drivers, but
it's still part of the rpm protocol. So please leave it here.

Regards,
Bjorn