Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] firmware: meson_sm: Add secure power domain support

From: Kevin Hilman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 06:40:18 -0800

Jianxin Pan <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> Please see my comments below:
>
> On 2019/11/10 4:11, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Jianxin Pan <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>>> The Amlogic Meson A1/C1 Secure Monitor implements calls to control power
>>> domain.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jianxin Pan <[email-masked]>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/firmware/meson/meson_sm.c       | 2 ++
>>>  include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h | 2 ++
>>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
> [...]
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h b/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h
>>> index 6669e2a..4ed3989 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/firmware/meson/meson_sm.h
>>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@ enum {
>>>  	SM_EFUSE_WRITE,
>>>  	SM_EFUSE_USER_MAX,
>>>  	SM_GET_CHIP_ID,
>>> +	SM_PWRC_SET,
>>> +	SM_PWRC_GET,
>> 
>> These new IDs are unique to the A1/C1 family.  Maybe we should add a
>> prefix to better indicate that.  Maybe:
>> 
>>        SM_A1_PWRC_SET,
>>        SM_A1_PWRC_GET,
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>
> I consulted with the internal VLSI team, and it's likely that the latter new SOC will follow A1/C1.
> And then it may become common function in the future.

OK, but it's not a common function for the past, so it's useful to mark
that distinction.

Just like in device-tree, we often have compatibles named for previous
SoC families (e.g. "gxbb") used on newer SoCs, but we use that to mean
"GXBB or newer".

Similarily here, we can use SM_A1_ prefix to mean "A1 or newer.

Kevin

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel