Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] dt-bindings: power: qcom-rpmpd: define RPMPD_VDDMD

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 04:04:50PM +0200, Barnabás Czémán wrote:
> On 2026-10-02 11:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 12:38:29AM +0200, Barnabás Czémán wrote:
> > > Define RPMPD_VDDMD can be used for SDM439 and SDM632 MSS.
> > 
> > There is no sdm439 RPMPD... The SDM632 is added later and bindings
> There will be.
> > header come with the compatible patch. Squash these.
> You have previously commented how that is connected to the indices.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <barnabas.czeman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > index 4371ac941f29..beb066b3aa8c 100644
> > > --- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
> > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> > >  #define RPMPD_VDDMX		3
> > >  #define RPMPD_VDDMX_AO		4
> > >  #define RPMPD_VDDMX_VFL		5
> > > +#define RPMPD_VDDMD		5
> > 
> > Problem is that it is platform specific and comment in that file says
> > "don't do it" yet you do it.
> It is not completely platform specific and if you have check the previous
> reviews Dmitry was asking me to define it. If i set it 10 what will be
> very safe for every platform i will get warning messages.
> By the way 5 is fine for SDM429, SDM439 and SDM632.

It's not fine, if we once get a platform which has both VDDMX_VFL and
VDDMD. THe whole point of having this generic RPMPD_ list is to have a
set of indices which can be used by any new platform being supported.
So, indeed, 10 is a correct value here.

> > 
> > So the device has nbo MX? Why commit msg is silent on this? Explains
> > not much except repeating the diff and referencing users which are
> > almost obvious if this is properly squashed.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry