linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] dt-bindings: power: Add rpm power domain bindings for qcs404

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

Message-ID: <6989da8a-d295-0079-ed32-b31fb1272c63@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:51:25 +0530
From:   Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>
To:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, andy.gross@...aro.org
Cc:     david.brown@...aro.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] dt-bindings: power: Add rpm power domain bindings
 for qcs404


On 3/24/2019 11:20 PM, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> 
> Add RPM Power domain bindings for the qcs404 family of SoC
> 
> [sibis: Add supported rpmpd states for qcs404]
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>

SoB ordering seems wrong.

> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>
> ---
>   .../devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt  |  1 +
>   include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h        | 22 +++++++++++++++++++
>   2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> index 980e5413d18f..172ccf940c5c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ which then translates it into a corresponding voltage on a rail
>   Required Properties:
>    - compatible: Should be one of the following
>   	* qcom,msm8996-rpmpd: RPM Power domain for the msm8996 family of SoC
> +	* qcom,qcs404-rpmpd: RPM Power domain for the qcs404 family of SoC
>   	* qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd: RPMh Power domain for the sdm845 family of SoC
>    - #power-domain-cells: number of cells in Power domain specifier
>   	must be 1.
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> index 87d9c6611682..450378662944 100644
> --- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> @@ -36,4 +36,26 @@
>   #define MSM8996_VDDSSCX		5
>   #define MSM8996_VDDSSCX_VFC	6
>   
> +/* QCS404 Power Domains */
> +#define QCS404_VDDMX		0
> +#define QCS404_VDDMX_AO		1
> +#define QCS404_VDDMX_VFL	2
> +#define QCS404_LPICX		3
> +#define QCS404_LPICX_VFL	4
> +#define QCS404_LPIMX		5
> +#define QCS404_LPIMX_VFL	6
> +
> +/* RPM SMD Power Domain performance levels */

so unlike in the sdm845 case where we map these levels to
(contiguous) corners before passing it over to rpm, we seem
to pass these as-is to rpm, right?

Does this work if the user passes some value which does not
really map to a level defined here?
For instance if value passed is 17 for instance do we fall back to
16?
  
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_RETENTION       16
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_RETENTION_PLUS  32
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_MIN_SVS         48
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_LOW_SVS         64
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_SVS             128
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_SVS_PLUS        192
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_NOM             256
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_NOM_PLUS        320
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_TURBO           384
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_TURBO_NO_CPR    416
> +#define RPM_SMD_LEVEL_BINNING         512
> +
>   #endif
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation