Re: [PATCH 2/6] soc: qcom: smem: Add pcode/fcode getters

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:30AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Introduce getters for SoC product and feature codes and export them.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c       | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> index 7191fa0c087f..e89b4d26877a 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/smem.c
> @@ -795,6 +795,72 @@ int qcom_smem_get_soc_id(u32 *id)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_smem_get_soc_id);
>  
> +/**
> + * qcom_smem_get_feature_code() - return the feature code
> + * @id:	On success, we return the feature code here.
> + *
> + * Look up the feature code identifier from SMEM and return it.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
> + */
> +int qcom_smem_get_feature_code(u32 *code)
> +{
> +	struct socinfo *info;
> +	u32 raw_code;
> +
> +	info = qcom_smem_get(QCOM_SMEM_HOST_ANY, SMEM_HW_SW_BUILD_ID, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(info))
> +		return PTR_ERR(info);
> +
> +	/* This only makes sense for socinfo >= 16 */
> +	if (__le32_to_cpu(info->fmt) < SOCINFO_VERSION(0, 16))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	raw_code = __le32_to_cpu(info->feature_code);
> +
> +	/* Ensure the value makes sense */
> +	if (raw_code >= SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE)
> +		raw_code = SOCINFO_FC_UNKNOWN;
> +
> +	*code = raw_code;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_smem_get_feature_code);
> +
> +/**
> + * qcom_smem_get_product_code() - return the product code
> + * @id:	On success, we return the product code here.
> + *
> + * Look up feature code identifier from SMEM and return it.
> + *
> + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure.
> + */
> +int qcom_smem_get_product_code(u32 *code)
> +{
> +	struct socinfo *info;
> +	u32 raw_code;
> +
> +	info = qcom_smem_get(QCOM_SMEM_HOST_ANY, SMEM_HW_SW_BUILD_ID, NULL);
> +	if (IS_ERR(info))
> +		return PTR_ERR(info);
> +
> +	/* This only makes sense for socinfo >= 16 */
> +	if (__le32_to_cpu(info->fmt) < SOCINFO_VERSION(0, 16))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	raw_code = __le32_to_cpu(info->pcode);
> +
> +	/* Ensure the value makes sense */
> +	if (raw_code >= SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE)
> +		raw_code = SOCINFO_FC_UNKNOWN;

This looks like a c&p from the previous function. Should we be comparing
the raw_code with a SOCINFO_PC_ constant?

> +
> +	*code = raw_code;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(qcom_smem_get_product_code);
> +
>  static int qcom_smem_get_sbl_version(struct qcom_smem *smem)
>  {
>  	struct smem_header *header;
> diff --git a/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h b/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h
> index a36a3b9d4929..aef8c9fc6c08 100644
> --- a/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h
> +++ b/include/linux/soc/qcom/smem.h
> @@ -13,5 +13,7 @@ int qcom_smem_get_free_space(unsigned host);
>  phys_addr_t qcom_smem_virt_to_phys(void *p);
>  
>  int qcom_smem_get_soc_id(u32 *id);
> +int qcom_smem_get_feature_code(u32 *code);
> +int qcom_smem_get_product_code(u32 *code);
>  
>  #endif
> 
> -- 
> 2.40.1
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry