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

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: <06506ed7-f861-0bca-8b87-e2da6a6bc789@quicinc.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:24:10 +0530
From:   Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <agross@...nel.org>,
        <andersson@...nel.org>, <lee@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        <broonie@...nel.org>, <sboyd@...nel.org>
CC:     <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: power: Add rpm power domains for SDX75


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@...cinc.com>
>>> ---
>>>   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?

Thanks,
Rohit.

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