Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 2021 21:07:06 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] soc: qcom: rpmhpd: Remove mx/cx relationship on sc7280 | From | Rajendra Nayak <> |
| |
On 12/9/2021 12:29 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On 12/9/2021 2:12 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: >> On Tue 07 Dec 04:08 CST 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> >>> While the requirement to specify the active + sleep and active-only MX >>> power-domains as the parents of the corresponding CX power domains is >>> applicable for most SoCs, we have some like the sc7280 where this >>> dependency is not applicable. >>> Define new rpmhpd structs for cx and cx_ao without the mx as >>> parent and use them for sc7280. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@quicinc.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c >>> index c71481d..4599efe 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c >>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c >>> @@ -120,6 +120,20 @@ static struct rpmhpd cx_ao = { >>> .res_name = "cx.lvl", >>> }; >>> +static struct rpmhpd cx_ao_no_parent; >>> +static struct rpmhpd cx_no_parent = { >> >> There are multiple variations of how each of these can be parented, but >> only one way they can be without a parent. So how about we turn this the >> other way around? >> >> I.e. let's name this one "cx" and the existing one "cx_w_mx_parent". >> >> >> This will be particularly useful when you look at mmcx, which on >> 8150/8180 has mx as parent and on 8450 has cx as parent.
I noticed mmcx on 8150/8180 does not have mx as parent, nevertheless I went ahead and moved to the _w_<parent-name>_parent suffix because it made sense if we did run into a situation like this in the future.
>> >> >> PS. Unfortunately I had merged 8450 since you wrote this series, I tried >> to just fix it up as I applied your patch, but noticed 8450_cx and >> 8450_mmcx and wanted to get your opinion on this first. > > I agree that sounds like a reasonable thing to do, I hadn't looked at 8450 > so did not notice it, I will rebase my patches on top and repost. > >> >> Regards, >> Bjorn >> >>> + .pd = { .name = "cx", }, >>> + .peer = &cx_ao_no_parent, >>> + .res_name = "cx.lvl", >>> +}; >>> + >>> +static struct rpmhpd cx_ao_no_parent = { >>> + .pd = { .name = "cx_ao", }, >>> + .active_only = true, >>> + .peer = &cx_no_parent, >>> + .res_name = "cx.lvl", >>> +}; >>> + >>> static struct rpmhpd mmcx_ao; >>> static struct rpmhpd mmcx = { >>> .pd = { .name = "mmcx", }, >>> @@ -273,8 +287,8 @@ static const struct rpmhpd_desc sc7180_desc = { >>> /* SC7280 RPMH powerdomains */ >>> static struct rpmhpd *sc7280_rpmhpds[] = { >>> - [SC7280_CX] = &cx, >>> - [SC7280_CX_AO] = &cx_ao, >>> + [SC7280_CX] = &cx_no_parent, >>> + [SC7280_CX_AO] = &cx_ao_no_parent, >>> [SC7280_EBI] = &ebi, >>> [SC7280_GFX] = &gfx, >>> [SC7280_MX] = &mx, >>> -- >>> 2.7.4 >>>
| |