Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: power: rpmhpd: Add Generic RPMh PD indexes

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 12.07.2023 10:24, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
> 
> On 7/11/2023 8:41 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On 11/07/2023 08:42, Rohit Agarwal wrote:
>>> Add Generic RPMh Power Domain indexes that can be used
>>> for all the Qualcomm SoC henceforth.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rohit Agarwal <quic_rohiagar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Suggested-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+)
>>>   create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..4da2e04
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2023, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_POWER_QCOM_RPMHPD_H
>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_POWER_QCOM_RPMHPD_H
>>> +
>>> +/* Generic RPMH Power Domain Indexes */
>>> +#define CX               0
>>> +#define MX               1
>>> +#define CX_AO            2
>>> +#define MX_AO            3
>>> +#define GFX              4
>>> +#define MSS              5
>>> +#define EBI              6
>>> +#define LCX              7
>>> +#define LMX              8
>>> +#define MMCX             9
>>> +#define MMCX_AO          10
>>> +#define MXC              11
>>> +#define MXC_AO           12
>>> +#define NSP              13
>>> +#define NSP0             14
>>> +#define NSP1             15
>>> +#define QPHY             16
>>> +#define DDR              17
>>> +#define XO               18
>>
>> I went through the existing defines. If we adopt the order of defines for sm8550, we can migrate that platform and all of sm8[234]50 without breaking ABI. This would be a minor gain, but still something.
>>
> Actually, I added them in the sequence based on the frequency with which they occur in the driver, so that there are less NULL entries created for any target additions. Shouldnt we keep it this way and ignore for previous targets then?
Don't bother yourself with this, we've already dragged you through
some bindings mess ;)

Dmitry just noticed that a happy coincidence occured and we could
swap out SM8[234]_50 indices with these ones and they would still
match. It'd be a separate patch though.

Konrad
> 
> Thanks,
> Rohit.
>>> +
>>> +#endif
>>