Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141556-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <2c2bca6c-b429-4cef-b63a-ee3bd6c9eecb@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:05:30 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] soc: qcom: Move some socinfo defines to the header,
 expand them
To: Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@quicinc.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
 Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>,
 Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>, Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>,
 Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
 Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
 freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
 Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>
References: <20240405-topic-smem_speedbin-v1-0-ce2b864251b1@linaro.org>
 <20240405-topic-smem_speedbin-v1-1-ce2b864251b1@linaro.org>
 <20240410132510649-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240410132510649-0700.eberman@hu-eberman-lv.qualcomm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 4/11/24 20:55, Elliot Berman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:29AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> In preparation for parsing the chip "feature code" (FC) and "product
>> code" (PC) (essentially the parameters that let us conclusively
>> characterize the sillicon we're running on, including various speed
>> bins), move the socinfo version defines to the public header and
>> include some more FC/PC defines.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
>> ---

[...]

>> +	SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE,
>> +};
> 
> SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE was a convenient limit since we mapped
> SOCINFO_FC_AA -> string "AA" via an array, and we've only needed the 8
> feature codes so far.
> 
> We should remove the EXT_RESERVE and test for the Y0-YF (internal
> feature code) values instead.

OK

> 
>> +
>> +/* Internal feature codes */
>> +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 0xf */
>> +#define SOCINFO_FC_Yn(n)		(0xf1 + n)
>> +#define SOCINFO_FC_INT_RESERVE		SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10)
> 
> We probably should've named this SOCINFO_FC_INT_MAX. Reserve implies
> it's reserved for some future use, but it's really the max value it
> could be.

So, should SOCINFO_FC_Yn(0x10) also be considered valid, or is (0xf)
the last one?

> 
>> +
>> +/* Product codes */
>> +#define SOCINFO_PC_UNKNOWN		0
>> +/* Valid values: 0 <= n <= 8, the rest is reserved */
>> +#define SOCINFO_PCn(n)			(n + 1)
>> +#define SOCINFO_PC_RESERVE		(BIT(31) - 1)
> 
> Similar comments here as the SOCINFO_FC_EXT_*. It's more like known
> values are [0,8], but more values could come in future chipsets.

Ok, sounds good, I'll remove the comment then

Konrad