Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:24:10 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: power: Add rpm power domains for SDX75 | From | Rohit Agarwal <> |
| |
On 7/4/2023 11:47 AM, Rohit Agarwal wrote: > > On 7/3/2023 8:29 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On 3.07.2023 16:42, Rohit Agarwal wrote: >>> Add RPM power domain bindings for the SDX75 SoC. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@quicinc.com> >>> --- >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 1 + >>> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 8 ++++++++ >>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> index afad313..58e1be8 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ properties: >>> - qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd >>> - qcom,sdx55-rpmhpd >>> - qcom,sdx65-rpmhpd >>> + - qcom,sdx75-rpmhpd >>> - qcom,sm6115-rpmpd >>> - qcom,sm6125-rpmpd >>> - qcom,sm6350-rpmhpd >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>> b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>> index 1bf8e87..8092d0d 100644 >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >>> @@ -57,6 +57,14 @@ >>> #define SDX65_CX_AO 4 >>> #define SDX65_MXC 5 >>> +/* SDX75 Power Domain Indexes */ >>> +#define SDX75_CX 0 >>> +#define SDX75_CX_AO 1 >>> +#define SDX75_MSS 2 >>> +#define SDX75_MX 3 >>> +#define SDX75_MX_AO 4 >>> +#define SDX75_MXC 5 >> Please instead introduce a set of defines without the SoC prefix >> (i.e. CX, CX_AO, MX etc.). We've been putting this off for too long >> and you're the first unlucky guy that submitted new RPMhPD support after >> we've concluded it'd be the way to go! :D Sadly, we can't replace the >> existing ones retroactively.. > Surely No issues. Will update it.
I have a doubt here. Cant we completely omit the #defines here and directly index this as 0,1,... because if the intention of this #defines is to understand the name of the pd then we can get it from the .name attribute in rpmhpd as well, right?
The problems with a common set of #define would be, lets say if we define CX_AO as 1 and some platform doesn't have CX_AO then wouldnt it leave a null entry in the driver entry of that platform?
Thanks, Rohit.
> > Thanks, > Rohit. >> Konrad >>> + >>> /* SM6350 Power Domain Indexes */ >>> #define SM6350_CX 0 >>> #define SM6350_GFX 1
| |