linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] pmdomain: add audio power island for Marvell PXA1908 SoC

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]

Message-ID: <4b22283d-3553-4e7f-9a50-a5b6e6d20155@dujemihanovic.xyz>
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 21:32:20 +0100
From: Duje Mihanović <duje@...emihanovic.xyz>
To: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>
Cc: ~postmarketos/upstreaming@...ts.sr.ht, phone-devel@...r.kernel.org,
 Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
 <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pmdomain: add audio power island for Marvell PXA1908
 SoC

On 11/29/25 20:53, Karel Balej wrote:
> Duje Mihanović, 2025-11-28T22:30:55+01:00:
>>> -#define NR_DOMAINS	5
>>> +#define APMU_AUD_CLK		0x80
>>> +#define AUDIO_ULCX_ENABLE	0x0d
>>
>> I would group these with the other register definitions.
>>
>> Also, it's probably better to be more consistent with the naming, so I'd
>> prefer APMU_AUDIO_CLK.
> 
> So would I, but this is how the downstream code calls it so my idea was
> that it possibly matches the datasheet and it would seem preferable to
> me to match that even though we don't have it available.

AUDIO is indeed nicer, and IMO it doesn't matter if the names are 
perfectly matched with downstream. Matching with the datasheet would be 
a stronger argument, but it indeed isn't available so the whole point is 
moot.

> I could then do the reverse of what you say and call the other
> definition AUD_ULCX_ENABLE but AUDIO seems nicer to me too and this one
> is not defined in the downstream code.
> 
> What do you think?

I'd still prefer AUDIO, but don't care about it that much, so up to you.

Regards,
--
Duje