linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: power: rpmpd: Add Generic RPM(h) PD indexes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 20:45:11 +0530
From:   Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
CC:     <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: power: rpmpd: Add Generic RPM(h) PD
 indexes


On 7/6/2023 8:30 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 6.07.2023 16:47, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
>> On 7/6/2023 8:00 PM, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 06:19:51PM +0530, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
>>>> Add Generic RPM(h) Power Domain indexes that can be used
>>>> for all the Qualcomm SoC henceforth.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>
>>>> Suggested-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
>>> Does it make sense to give this link [1] so that we know what is
>>> Konrad's suggestion and the discussion around it?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/0d468d08-6410-e424-b4f3-5245cdb0334a@linaro.org/
>> Yes, could be given in the cover letter.
>>>> ---
> [...]
>
>>>> +#define RPMPD_VDDMD        22
>>>> +#define RPMPD_VDDMD_AO        23
>>>> +#define RPMPD_LPICX_VFL        24
>>>> +#define RPMPD_LPIMX_VFL        25
>>>> +
>>> How did you come up with this list? A union of all SoCs supported by
>>> RPMh driver?
>> Yes, union of all the SoCs and arranged based on frequencies of usage.
> The latter part is very thoughtful, thanks for taking that into account.
>
> That said (and I really don't wanna be picky here, I'm just coming up with
> ideas a bit later than I'd like to).. Perhaps this patch should be limited
> to RPMhPD [1] and the definitions could be moved to a new binding, so:
So should we not update anything in this old binding and completely move 
to the new bindings?
rpmhpd.h?
Not even rpmpd_* bindings?

Thanks,
Rohit.
> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h
> // this way we don't have to add RPMHPD_
> #define CX	0
Ok, will remove this as well.
> which would result in us being able to do:
>
> #include ....rpmhpd.h
> [...]
> power-domains = <&rpmhpd CX>;
>
> in the device tree
>
> which is even more concise!

Yes

Thanks,
Rohit.

>
> [1] The old RPM SMD platforms have some duplications in the names..
>      No point in duplicating that. The oldest entries remember 2013 so
>      it's easy to see how we had some dirt build up there.
>
> Konrad
>> Thanks,
>> Rohit.
>>>>    /* SA8775P Power Domain Indexes */
>>>>    #define SA8775P_CX    0
>>>>    #define SA8775P_CX_AO    1
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Pavan