| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:07:20 +0200
From: Martin Botka <martin.botka@...ainline.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: martin.botka1@...il.com, ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht,
konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org,
angelogioacchino.delregno@...ainline.org,
marijn.suijten@...ainline.org, jamipkettunen@...ainline.org,
paul.bouchara@...ainline.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 3/3] rpmcc: Add support for SM6125
On Tue, Jul 27 2021 at 02:46:39 PM -0700, Stephen Boyd
<sboyd@...nel.org> wrote:
> Quoting Martin Botka (2021-06-29 03:26:23)
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
>> b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
>> index 8200c26b968c..51458f740ba0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
>> @@ -1059,6 +1059,61 @@ static const struct rpm_smd_clk_desc
>> rpm_clk_sdm660 = {
>> .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(sdm660_clks),
>> };
>>
>> +/* SM6125 */
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_BRANCH(sm6125, bi_tcxo, bi_tcxo_ao,
>> + QCOM_SMD_RPM_MISC_CLK, 0,
>> 19200000);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, cnoc_clk, cnoc_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_BUS_CLK, 1);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, bimc_clk, bimc_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_MEM_CLK, 0);
>
> Can we use msm8916_bimc_clk?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, snoc_clk, snoc_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_BUS_CLK, 2);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_BRANCH(sm6125, qdss_clk, qdss_a_clk,
>> + QCOM_SMD_RPM_MISC_CLK, 1,
>> 19200000);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, ce1_clk, ce1_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_CE_CLK, 0);
>
> Can we use msm8992_ce1_clk?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, ipa_clk, ipa_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_IPA_CLK, 0);
>
> Can we use msm8976_ipa_clk?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, qup_clk, qup_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_QUP_CLK, 0);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, mmnrt_clk, mmnrt_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_MMAXI_CLK, 0);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, mmrt_clk, mmrt_a_clk,
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_MMAXI_CLK, 1);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, snoc_periph_clk, snoc_periph_a_clk,
>> +
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_BUS_CLK, 0);
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM(sm6125, snoc_lpass_clk, snoc_lpass_a_clk,
>> +
>> QCOM_SMD_RPM_BUS_CLK, 5);
>> +
>> +/* SMD_XO_BUFFER */
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_XO_BUFFER(sm6125, ln_bb_clk1, ln_bb_clk1_a, 1);
>
> msm8916?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_XO_BUFFER(sm6125, ln_bb_clk2, ln_bb_clk2_a, 2);
>
> msm8916?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_XO_BUFFER(sm6125, ln_bb_clk3, ln_bb_clk3_a, 3);
>
> sdm660?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_XO_BUFFER(sm6125, rf_clk1, rf_clk1_a, 4);
>
> msm8916?
>
>> +DEFINE_CLK_SMD_RPM_XO_BUFFER(sm6125, rf_clk2, rf_clk2_a, 5);
>
> msm8916?
>
Will do to all.
>> +
>> +static struct clk_smd_rpm *sm6125_clks[] = {
>> + [RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC] = &sm6125_bi_tcxo,
>> + [RPM_SMD_XO_A_CLK_SRC] = &sm6125_bi_tcxo_ao,
>> + [RPM_SMD_SNOC_CLK] = &sm6125_snoc_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_SNOC_A_CLK] = &sm6125_snoc_a_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_BIMC_CLK] = &sm6125_bimc_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_BIMC_A_CLK] = &sm6125_bimc_a_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_QDSS_CLK] = &sm6125_qdss_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_QDSS_A_CLK] = &sm6125_qdss_a_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_RF_CLK1] = &sm6125_rf_clk1,
>> + [RPM_SMD_RF_CLK1_A] = &sm6125_rf_clk1_a,
>> + [RPM_SMD_RF_CLK2] = &sm6125_rf_clk2,
>> + [RPM_SMD_RF_CLK2_A] = &sm6125_rf_clk2_a,
>> + [RPM_SMD_LN_BB_CLK1] = &sm6125_ln_bb_clk1,
>> + [RPM_SMD_LN_BB_CLK1_A] = &sm6125_ln_bb_clk1_a,
>> + [RPM_SMD_LN_BB_CLK2] = &sm6125_ln_bb_clk2,
>> + [RPM_SMD_LN_BB_CLK2_A] = &sm6125_ln_bb_clk2_a,
>> + [RPM_SMD_LN_BB_CLK3] = &sm6125_ln_bb_clk3,
>> + [RPM_SMD_LN_BB_CLK3_A] = &sm6125_ln_bb_clk3_a,
>> + [RPM_SMD_CNOC_CLK] = &sm6125_cnoc_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_CNOC_A_CLK] = &sm6125_cnoc_a_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_CE1_CLK] = &sm6125_ce1_clk,
>> + [RPM_SMD_CE1_A_CLK] = &sm6125_ce1_a_clk,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct rpm_smd_clk_desc rpm_clk_sm6125 = {
>> + .clks = sm6125_clks,
>> + .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(sm6125_clks),
>> +};
>> +
>> static const struct of_device_id rpm_smd_clk_match_table[] = {
>> { .compatible = "qcom,rpmcc-msm8916", .data =
>> &rpm_clk_msm8916 },
>> { .compatible = "qcom,rpmcc-msm8936", .data =
>> &rpm_clk_msm8936 },
>> diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/smd-rpm.h
>> b/include/linux/soc/qcom/smd-rpm.h
>> index f2645ec52520..b737d7e456e4 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/soc/qcom/smd-rpm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/smd-rpm.h
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct qcom_smd_rpm;
>> #define QCOM_SMD_RPM_NCPA 0x6170636E
>> #define QCOM_SMD_RPM_NCPB 0x6270636E
>> #define QCOM_SMD_RPM_OCMEM_PWR 0x706d636f
>> +#define QCOM_SMD_RPM_QUP_CLK 0x00707571
>> #define QCOM_SMD_RPM_QPIC_CLK 0x63697071
>> #define QCOM_SMD_RPM_SMPA 0x61706d73
>> #define QCOM_SMD_RPM_SMPB 0x62706d73
>
> Two patches are adding this in different places.
Im aware. I will argue tho that adding it
in alphabetical order is the correct way to go here.
Thats how the rest is done except the last 4 defines
in that block which probably should be moved into
their alphabetical order as well
(They do not follow address ordering).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists