linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cpufreq: ti: update OPP table for AM62Px SoCs

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: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 09:50:17 -0500
From: Bryan Brattlof <bb@...com>
To: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar
	<viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring
	<robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra
	<vigneshr@...com>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Vibhore Vardhan
	<vibhore@...com>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cpufreq: ti: update OPP table for AM62Px SoCs

On June 13, 2024 thus sayeth Dhruva Gole:
> On Jun 12, 2024 at 18:17:35 -0500, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> > More speed grades for the AM62Px SoC family have been defined which
> > unfortunately no longer align with the AM62x table. So create a new
> > table with these new speed grades defined for the AM62Px
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Bryan Brattlof <bb@...com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> > index a80698f3cfe65..6c84562de5c6b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> > @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ enum {
> >  #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_R_MPU_OPP		BIT(1)
> >  #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_V_MPU_OPP		BIT(2)
> >  
> > +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_O_MPU_OPP			15
> > +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_S_MPU_OPP			19
> > +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_U_MPU_OPP			21
> > +
> > +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP		BIT(0)
> > +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_U_MPU_OPP		BIT(2)
> > +
> >  #define VERSION_COUNT				2
> >  
> >  struct ti_cpufreq_data;
> > @@ -134,6 +141,23 @@ static unsigned long omap3_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> >  	return BIT(efuse);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static unsigned long am62p5_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> > +					unsigned long efuse)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long calc_efuse = AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP;
> 
> This and he earlier patch, why not continue using the name convention
> calculated_efuse like in am625 and dra ?
>

For whatever reason I've been more of a minimalist when it comes to 
naming stack variables. Single letters are just as good as full 
sentences ;)

I'll use the full name next round

~Bryan