linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: qcom,rpmhpd: Add Generic RPMh 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e77c39fe-b7cf-49b3-9260-ecf4872e8fdf@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:14:43 +0530
From:   Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@...cinc.com>
To:     Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>
CC:     <agross@...nel.org>, <andersson@...nel.org>,
        <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: qcom,rpmhpd: Add Generic RPMh PD
 indexes

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 10:52:41AM +0530, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> Add Generic RPMh Power Domain indexes that can be used
> for all the Qualcomm SoC henceforth.
> The power domain indexes of these bindings are based on compatibility
> with current targets like SM8[2345]50 targets.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@...cinc.com>
> Suggested-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
> ---
>  include/dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h
> 
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..7c201a6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2023, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_POWER_QCOM_RPMHPD_H
> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_POWER_QCOM_RPMHPD_H
> +
> +/* Generic RPMH Power Domain Indexes */
> +#define RPMHPD_CX               0
> +#define RPMHPD_CX_AO		1
> +#define RPMHPD_EBI		2
> +#define RPMHPD_GFX		3
> +#define RPMHPD_LCX		4
> +#define RPMHPD_LMX		5
> +#define RPMHPD_MMCX		6
> +#define RPMHPD_MMCX_AO		7
> +#define RPMHPD_MX		8
> +#define RPMHPD_MX_AO		9
> +#define RPMHPD_MXC		10
> +#define RPMHPD_MXC_AO		11
> +#define RPMHPD_MSS              12
> +#define RPMHPD_NSP		13
> +#define RPMHPD_NSP0             14
> +#define RPMHPD_NSP1             15
> +#define RPMHPD_QPHY             16
> +#define RPMHPD_DDR              17
> +#define RPMHPD_XO               18
> +
> +#endif
> -- 

I see the PD performance levels (RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_xxx) are still
coming from qcom-rpmpd.h. Which means Socs with RPMh also need to
include the older header for these definitions along with this newly
created header. something to improve for the clarity sake?

Thanks,
Pavan