[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zc5u7ixaser6ekl3sltzxccstu63tpydxybquxz5hcasj4cmfo@csjwfifugeod>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2024 05:21:25 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] soc: qcom: smem: Add pcode/fcode getters
On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:30AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Introduce getters for SoC product and feature codes and export them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> index 7191fa0c087f..e89b4d26877a 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> @@ -795,6 +795,72 @@ int qcom_smem_get_soc_id(u32 *id)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_smem_get_soc_id);
>
> +/**
> + * qcom_smem_get_feature_code() - return the feature code
> + * @id: On success, we return the feature code here.
> + *
> + * Look up the feature code identifier from SMEM and return it.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
> + */
> +int qcom_smem_get_feature_code(u32 *code)
> +{
> + struct socinfo *info;
> + u32 raw_code;
> +
> + info = qcom_smem_get(QCOM_SMEM_HOST_ANY, SMEM_HW_SW_BUILD_ID, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(info))
> + return PTR_ERR(info);
> +
> + /* This only makes sense for socinfo >= 16 */
> + if (__le32_to_cpu(info->fmt) < SOCINFO_VERSION(0, 16))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + raw_code = __le32_to_cpu(info->feature_code);
> +
> + /* Ensure the value makes sense */
> + if (raw_code >= SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE)
> + raw_code = SOCINFO_FC_UNKNOWN;
> +
> + *code = raw_code;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_smem_get_feature_code);
> +
> +/**
> + * qcom_smem_get_product_code() - return the product code
> + * @id: On success, we return the product code here.
> + *
> + * Look up feature code identifier from SMEM and return it.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
> + */
> +int qcom_smem_get_product_code(u32 *code)
> +{
> + struct socinfo *info;
> + u32 raw_code;
> +
> + info = qcom_smem_get(QCOM_SMEM_HOST_ANY, SMEM_HW_SW_BUILD_ID, NULL);
> + if (IS_ERR(info))
> + return PTR_ERR(info);
> +
> + /* This only makes sense for socinfo >= 16 */
> + if (__le32_to_cpu(info->fmt) < SOCINFO_VERSION(0, 16))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + raw_code = __le32_to_cpu(info->pcode);
> +
> + /* Ensure the value makes sense */
> + if (raw_code >= SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE)
> + raw_code = SOCINFO_FC_UNKNOWN;
This looks like a c&p from the previous function. Should we be comparing
the raw_code with a SOCINFO_PC_ constant?
> +
> + *code = raw_code;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_smem_get_product_code);
> +
> static int qcom_smem_get_sbl_version(struct qcom_smem *smem)
> {
> struct smem_header *header;
> diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h b/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h
> index a36a3b9d4929..aef8c9fc6c08 100644
> --- a/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h
> @@ -13,5 +13,7 @@ int qcom_smem_get_free_space(unsigned host);
> phys_addr_t qcom_smem_virt_to_phys(void *p);
>
> int qcom_smem_get_soc_id(u32 *id);
> +int qcom_smem_get_feature_code(u32 *code);
> +int qcom_smem_get_product_code(u32 *code);
>
> #endif
>
> --
> 2.40.1
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists