Re: [PATCH 01/53] dt-bindings: interconnect: qcom,icc: Introduce fixed BCM voter indices

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 12.07.2023 22:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/07/2023 14:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> It makes zero (or less) sense to consume BCM voters per interconnect
>> provider. They are shared throughout the entire system and it's enough
>> to keep a single reference to each of them.
>>
>> Storing them in a shared array at fixed indices will let us improve both
>> the representation of the RPMh architecture (every RSC can hold a resource
>> vote on any bus, they're not limited in that regard) and save as much as
>> kilobytes worth of RAM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h | 8 ++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h
>> index cd34f36daaaa..9c13ef8a044e 100644
>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h
>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/interconnect/qcom,icc.h
>> @@ -23,4 +23,12 @@
>>  #define QCOM_ICC_TAG_ALWAYS		(QCOM_ICC_TAG_AMC | QCOM_ICC_TAG_WAKE |\
>>  					 QCOM_ICC_TAG_SLEEP)
>>  
>> +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_APPS		0
>> +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_DISP		1
>> +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_CAM0		2
>> +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_CAM1		3
>> +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_CAM2		4
>> +
>> +#define ICC_BCM_VOTER_MAX		64
> 
> I proposed to skip the max. If you actually use it, you won't be able to
> change it ever.
I guess I can just add the max in the driver.

Konrad

> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>