linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] arm64: dts: qcom: add initial SM8650 dtsi

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:   Mon, 6 Nov 2023 09:22:08 +0100
From:   neil.armstrong@...aro.org
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/8] arm64: dts: qcom: add initial SM8650 dtsi

On 02/11/2023 14:32, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/11/2023 11:54, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> On 25/10/2023 11:01, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/25/23 09:47, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> Add initial DTSI for the Qualcomm SM8650 platform,
>>>> only contains nodes which doesn't depend on interconnect.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
>>>> ---[...]
>>>
>>>> +            CLUSTER_SLEEP_1: cluster-sleep-1 {
>>>> +                compatible = "domain-idle-state";
>>>> +                arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x4100c344>;
>>> I think this parameter signals the AOSS to attempt system
>>> suspend and CLUSTER_SLEEP is a shallower, separate state.
>>
>> OK, so downstream call this state "APSS_OFF" and the other state
>> calling 0x41000044 "CLUSTER_PWR_DN"Well, the name APSS_OFF suggests that all clusters go offline so
> that would be a bit more complex than a simple "cut power to this
> cluster"
> 
> 
>> On sm8[345]0 and qdu1000/sm4450 there's both states called CLUSTER_SLEEP_0 and CLUSTER_SLEEP_1,
>> and referenced into CLUSTER_PD cluster power domain.
>>
>> I assume this is the same as SM8550, so what's the issue ?
> It's just that we've been naming it in the most generic way possible
> and that it could be more descriptive, especially given its
> correlation with different things

Ack, will change the naming

Neil

> 
> Konrad