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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Thu, 6 Jul 2023 20:58:33 +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 8:52 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 6.07.2023 17:15, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
>> 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?
> Yes, create qcom,rpmhpd.h and add new common entries there and let this
> ship sink
>
>> rpmhpd.h?
>> Not even rpmpd_* bindings?
> Again, due to [1], let's not touch that for now. We'll worry about that
> when somebody will try to add a new entry to that driver.
Yes.

Thanks,
Rohit.
>
> Konrad
>> 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