Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] soc: qcom: rpmhpd: Remove mx/cx relationship on sc7280

[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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   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