Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Add MDM9607

[barnabas . czeman]

On 2025-12-31 13:27, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 12/31/25 3:29 AM, Barnabás Czémán wrote:
> > From: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add support for MDM9607 MSS it have different ACC settings
> > and it needs mitigation for inrush current issue.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [Reword the commit, add has_ext_bhs_reg]
> > Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <barnabas.czeman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> [...]
>
> >  			val = readl(qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl);
> > -			for (; i >= 0; i--) {
> > +			for (; i >= reverse; i--) {
> >  				val |= BIT(i);
> >  				writel(val, qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl);
> >  				/*
> > @@ -833,6 +847,12 @@ static int q6v5proc_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> >  				val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl);
> >  				udelay(1);
> >  			}
> > +			for (i = 0; i < reverse; i++) {
> > +				val |= BIT(i);
> > +				writel(val, qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl);
> > +				val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl);
>
> Downstream doesn't do val |= readl() in the inrush-current-mitigation
> case
I have checked you are right, thanks. 1_8 reset sequence have it but 
1_8_inrush_current have not.
As i understanding from downstream it should be handled in both for 
loop, i could add an if for
handle this or implement 1_8_inrush_current reset separately. Which one 
would be the preferred?
> Konrad