linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] clk: qcom: rpmh: Add support for SM8750 rpmh clocks

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: <5pgwerxhqhyr2u47grqzgzvvng4rojzq4gozil7vy37bew5pqj@wt676vfjs7bg>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:31:32 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, 
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, 
	Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>, Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@...cinc.com>, 
	Satya Durga Srinivasu Prabhala <quic_satyap@...cinc.com>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] clk: qcom: rpmh: Add support for SM8750 rpmh
 clocks

On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:28:02PM -0800, Melody Olvera wrote:
> From: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>
> 
> Add the RPMH clocks present in SM8750 SoC and fix the match table to
> sort it alphabetically.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> index eefc322ce367..a3b381e34e48 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> @@ -368,6 +368,10 @@ DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk2, _d, "rfclkd2", 1);
>  DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk3, _d, "rfclkd3", 1);
>  DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk4, _d, "rfclkd4", 1);
>  
> +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk3, _a2, "rfclka3", 2);
> +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk4, _a2, "rfclka4", 2);
> +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk5, _a2, "rfclka5", 2);

Are the two last clocks defined "for the future platforms"?

> +
>  DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk1, _a1, "clka1", 1);
>  DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk2, _a1, "clka2", 1);
>  DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk3, _a1, "clka3", 1);
> @@ -807,6 +811,27 @@ static const struct clk_rpmh_desc clk_rpmh_x1e80100 = {
>  	.num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(x1e80100_rpmh_clocks),
>  };
>  
> +static struct clk_hw *sm8750_rpmh_clocks[] = {
> +	[RPMH_CXO_CLK]		= &clk_rpmh_bi_tcxo_div2.hw,
> +	[RPMH_CXO_CLK_A]	= &clk_rpmh_bi_tcxo_div2_ao.hw,
> +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK1]	= &clk_rpmh_clk6_a2.hw,
> +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK1_A]	= &clk_rpmh_clk6_a2_ao.hw,
> +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK3]	= &clk_rpmh_clk8_a2.hw,
> +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK3_A]	= &clk_rpmh_clk8_a2_ao.hw,
> +	[RPMH_RF_CLK1]		= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk1_a.hw,
> +	[RPMH_RF_CLK1_A]	= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk1_a_ao.hw,
> +	[RPMH_RF_CLK2]		= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk2_a.hw,
> +	[RPMH_RF_CLK2_A]	= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk2_a_ao.hw,
> +	[RPMH_RF_CLK3]		= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk3_a2.hw,
> +	[RPMH_RF_CLK3_A]	= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk3_a2_ao.hw,
> +	[RPMH_IPA_CLK]		= &clk_rpmh_ipa.hw,
> +};
> +
> +static const struct clk_rpmh_desc clk_rpmh_sm8750 = {
> +	.clks = sm8750_rpmh_clocks,
> +	.num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8750_rpmh_clocks),
> +};
> +
>  static struct clk_hw *of_clk_rpmh_hw_get(struct of_phandle_args *clkspec,
>  					 void *data)
>  {
> @@ -894,6 +919,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id clk_rpmh_match_table[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sa8775p},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sar2130p-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sar2130p},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7180},
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7280},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc8180x},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc8280xp},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sdm845},
> @@ -909,7 +935,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id clk_rpmh_match_table[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8450},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8550},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8650-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8650},
> -	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7280},

Please don't mix fixes and actual code. I'd suggest splitting sc7280
move to the separate commit.

> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8750-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8750},
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_x1e80100},
>  	{ }
>  };
> -- 
> 2.46.1
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry