Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-213096-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 17:03:19 +0530
From: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
To: Bryan Brattlof <bb@ti.com>
CC: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar
	<viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring
	<robh@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
        Conor Dooley
	<conor+dt@kernel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra
	<vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Tero Kristo <kristo@kernel.org>, Vibhore Vardhan
	<vibhore@ti.com>,
        <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] cpufreq: ti: update OPP table for AM62Px SoCs
Message-ID: <20240613113319.kryllyhrqzcnjqgk@dhruva>
References: <20240612-ti-opp-updates-v2-0-422b6747a254@ti.com>
 <20240612-ti-opp-updates-v2-2-422b6747a254@ti.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240612-ti-opp-updates-v2-2-422b6747a254@ti.com>

On Jun 12, 2024 at 18:17:35 -0500, Bryan Brattlof wrote:
> More speed grades for the AM62Px SoC family have been defined which
> unfortunately no longer align with the AM62x table. So create a new
> table with these new speed grades defined for the AM62Px
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bryan Brattlof <bb@ti.com>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> index a80698f3cfe65..6c84562de5c6b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/ti-cpufreq.c
> @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ enum {
>  #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_R_MPU_OPP		BIT(1)
>  #define AM62A7_SUPPORT_V_MPU_OPP		BIT(2)
>  
> +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_O_MPU_OPP			15
> +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_S_MPU_OPP			19
> +#define AM62P5_EFUSE_U_MPU_OPP			21
> +
> +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP		BIT(0)
> +#define AM62P5_SUPPORT_U_MPU_OPP		BIT(2)
> +
>  #define VERSION_COUNT				2
>  
>  struct ti_cpufreq_data;
> @@ -134,6 +141,23 @@ static unsigned long omap3_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
>  	return BIT(efuse);
>  }
>  
> +static unsigned long am62p5_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
> +					unsigned long efuse)
> +{
> +	unsigned long calc_efuse = AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP;

This and he earlier patch, why not continue using the name convention
calculated_efuse like in am625 and dra ?

> +
> +	switch (efuse) {
> +	case AM62P5_EFUSE_U_MPU_OPP:
> +	case AM62P5_EFUSE_S_MPU_OPP:
> +		calc_efuse |= AM62P5_SUPPORT_U_MPU_OPP;
> +		fallthrough;
> +	case AM62P5_EFUSE_O_MPU_OPP:
> +		calc_efuse |= AM62P5_SUPPORT_O_MPU_OPP;
> +	}
> +
> +	return calc_efuse;
> +}
> +
>  static unsigned long am62a7_efuse_xlate(struct ti_cpufreq_data *opp_data,
>  					unsigned long efuse)

Otherwise, Looks good.
Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>

-- 
Best regards,
Dhruva