Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] soc: qcom: smem: Add a feature code getter

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 11:53:31AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 18.04.2024 1:39 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:02:54PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> Recent (SM8550+ ish) Qualcomm SoCs have a new mechanism for precisely
> >> identifying the specific SKU and the precise speed bin (in the general
> >> meaning of this word, anyway): a pair of values called Product Code
> >> and Feature Code.
> >>
> >> Based on this information, we can deduce the available frequencies for
> >> things such as Adreno. In the case of Adreno specifically, Pcode is
> >> useless for non-prototype SoCs.
> >>
> >> Introduce a getter for the feature code and export it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> +/* Internal feature codes */
> >> +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 0xf */
> >> +#define SOCINFO_FC_Yn(n)		(0xf1 + n)
> >> +#define SOCINFO_FC_INT_MAX		SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10)
> > 
> > This is 0x101 rather than 0x100 or 0xff. Is that expected?
> 
> Yes, this is "the first invalid one", similar to ENUMNAME_NUM
> 
> > 
> >> +
> >> +/* Product codes */
> >> +#define SOCINFO_PC_UNKNOWN		0
> >> +#define SOCINFO_PCn(n)			(n + 1)
> >> +#define SOCINFO_PC_RESERVE		(BIT(31) - 1)
> > 
> > This patch works on fcodes, why do we have PCode defines here?
> 
> I decided they're useful to keep.. Didn't want to split them to a separate
> patch for no reason.


Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry