Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:05:30 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/6] soc: qcom: Move some socinfo defines to the header, expand them | From | Konrad Dybcio <> |
| |
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
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |