Message ID | 20231118-b4-camss-named-power-domains-v5-0-55eb0f35a30a@linaro.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | media: qcom: camss: Introduce support for named power-domains | expand |
Right now we use fixed indexes to assign power-domains, with a requirement for the TOP GDSC to come last in the list. Adding support for named power-domains means the declaration in the dtsi can come in any order. After this change we continue to support the old indexing - if a SoC resource declaration or the in-use dtb doesn't declare power-domain names we fall back to the default legacy indexing.
On 11/18/23 13:11, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > Right now we use fixed indexes to assign power-domains, with a > requirement for the TOP GDSC to come last in the list. > > Adding support for named power-domains means the declaration in the dtsi > can come in any order. > > After this change we continue to support the old indexing - if a SoC > resource declaration or the in-use dtb doesn't declare power-domain names > we fall back to the default legacy indexing. > > From this point on though new SoC additions should contain named > power-domains, eventually we will drop support for legacy indexing. > > Tested-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> > --- So, this commit should be a NOP within this series? res->pd_name isn't defined anywhere afaics Konrad
On 22/11/2023 19:55, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 11/18/23 13:11, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> Right now we use fixed indexes to assign power-domains, with a >> requirement for the TOP GDSC to come last in the list. >> >> Adding support for named power-domains means the declaration in the dtsi >> can come in any order. >> >> After this change we continue to support the old indexing - if a SoC >> resource declaration or the in-use dtb doesn't declare power-domain names >> we fall back to the default legacy indexing. >> >> From this point on though new SoC additions should contain named >> power-domains, eventually we will drop support for legacy indexing. >> >> Tested-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> >> --- > So, this commit should be a NOP within this series? > > res->pd_name isn't defined anywhere afaics > > Konrad This series is mergeable though the linux-media tree standalone, yes. Once merged, the dtsi change given in the cover letter will be submitted. The sm8250 change is posted here : https://git.codelinaro.org/bryan.odonoghue/kernel/-/tree/b4/b4-camss-named-power-domains-v5+sm8250 --- bod
On 23/11/2023 11:49, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > On 11/22/23 21:55, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 22/11/2023 19:55, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 11/18/23 13:11, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >>>> Right now we use fixed indexes to assign power-domains, with a >>>> requirement for the TOP GDSC to come last in the list. >>>> >>>> Adding support for named power-domains means the declaration in the >>>> dtsi >>>> can come in any order. >>>> >>>> After this change we continue to support the old indexing - if a SoC >>>> resource declaration or the in-use dtb doesn't declare power-domain >>>> names >>>> we fall back to the default legacy indexing. >>>> >>>> From this point on though new SoC additions should contain named >>>> power-domains, eventually we will drop support for legacy indexing. >>>> >>>> Tested-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@gmail.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org> >>>> --- >>> So, this commit should be a NOP within this series? >>> >>> res->pd_name isn't defined anywhere afaics >>> >>> Konrad >> >> This series is mergeable though the linux-media tree standalone, yes. >> >> Once merged, the dtsi change given in the cover letter will be submitted. > What I meant to say is that something similar to [1] is missing to > make use of the infra introduced with this patch. > > Konrad > > [1] > https://git.codelinaro.org/bryan.odonoghue/kernel/-/commit/f43942091c01c1f263a6e7adbcd0ed8ce723a303 Yeah, to be honest I debated with myself whether or not to include that patch since once defined the code here will execute looking for named pd. I'm not opposed to sending a v6 to include this additional change though, I've thoroughly tested on rb5. --- bod