linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mailbox: qcom-apcs: Add SM6125 compatible

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: <P0A2VQ.Z2SRD0005J6R3@somainline.org>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 19:02:49 +0200
From:   Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>
To:     Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:     ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
        konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org,
        angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org,
        marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, jamipkettunen@...ainline.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mailbox: qcom-apcs: Add SM6125 compatible



On Sun, Jun 20 2021 at 11:03:04 PM -0500, Jassi Brar 
<jassisinghbrar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 4:46 AM Martin Botka
> <martin.botka@...ainline.org> wrote:
>> 
>>  This commit adds compatible for the SM6125 SoC
>> 
>>  Signed-off-by: Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>
>>  ---
>>  Changes in V2:
>>  None
>>  Changes in V3:
>>  Change compatible to apcs-hmss-global
>>   drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c | 5 +++++
>>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>> 
>>  diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c 
>> b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c
>>  index f25324d03842..f24c5ad8d658 100644
>>  --- a/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c
>>  +++ b/drivers/mailbox/qcom-apcs-ipc-mailbox.c
>>  @@ -57,6 +57,10 @@ static const struct qcom_apcs_ipc_data 
>> sdm660_apcs_data = {
>>          .offset = 8, .clk_name = NULL
>>   };
>> 
>>  +static const struct qcom_apcs_ipc_data sm6125_apcs_data = {
>>  +       .offset = 8, .clk_name = NULL
>>  +};
>>  +
>>   static const struct qcom_apcs_ipc_data apps_shared_apcs_data = {
>>          .offset = 12, .clk_name = NULL
>>   };
>>  @@ -166,6 +170,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id 
>> qcom_apcs_ipc_of_match[] = {
>>          { .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-apss-shared", .data = 
>> &apps_shared_apcs_data },
>>          { .compatible = "qcom,sdm660-apcs-hmss-global", .data = 
>> &sdm660_apcs_data },
>>          { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-apss-shared", .data = 
>> &apps_shared_apcs_data },
>>  +       { .compatible = "qcom,sm6125-apcs-hmss-global", .data = 
>> &sm6125_apcs_data },
>>          { .compatible = "qcom,sm8150-apss-shared", .data = 
>> &apps_shared_apcs_data },
>>          { .compatible = "qcom,sdx55-apcs-gcc", .data = 
>> &sdx55_apcs_data },
>>          {}
>> 
> These all are basically different names for the same controller.
> The 'offset' is a configuration parameter and the 'clock', when NULL,
> is basically some "always-on" clock.
> I am sure we wouldn't be doing it, if the controller was third-party.
> 
> -Jassi

I'm aware that its not great to duplicate but i just followed
how it was done previously.

I will probably send a patch to lump the common conf together.

Best Regards,
Martin