From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.mainlining.org (mail.mainlining.org [5.75.144.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 618562BD11; Wed, 31 Dec 2025 14:50:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=5.75.144.95 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767192626; cv=none; b=BlRWzcUnrIfV2rMQI4B/isyWPxGvsn6ikmCCbyOg1XW+6rr/VL6+M+Oud9KSj8Boj2DHxXFVPDH2BUDvZ8lbp6SfVBwPZy24CZybSGdGfcEz3OCzpVNl6amAXbJtesgM+UznqfSnvWqMHzqsadS4o5W9ubhbbnQf4BrYRwI3lnI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1767192626; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zLKowv1tnpfQY+IZcks1H6VbNm0706LX1BKfLq+Nseo=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=pe9oL+tCJkHIZig3O9ePX++SRB+jv9oIzIjBCJnRtx76tBlhfX6iH+7jKhiuAzGM8OHWkQHvIxrMjCO/n/Uaf273BVGETbqP34P1ekXcMdcmOOaCXJU/uSABwE83XRCgGOJyc1VvjlDULq53RcLHoBPUWemXsZx0S5cUGcYww9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=CDThrQwk; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=THMVB/VT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=5.75.144.95 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="CDThrQwk"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="THMVB/VT" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767192613; bh=Wnek6org21mAx+Fsck5FhQB 7SG91dB7R4ICYogw7qvc=; b=CDThrQwkbksfLAv43xBbTpnv3ScnDpFYjHn8oX45sRrWE6QSmg qXzlbNk5Dj4+SgnFoD90dYLcwjyn7JkMAOIxU++OAZ1BNowoPpZ9AIVhVizg15IpaQWmKqi/bVL FILWGqYRNjXE7uuDktDAsBqZ9Ksr4lhKVYrwps3R5FCn+OPDT+VCDmtolhXBfAV43tmFKh0QH+y VwfRgiZEv1TkGGMT0kc+eUv4bCkOvfDMmDRMKRQm23FaW1faF5vsQu1bSZxnLrUWAExi5Wn4j2m L4BURDkxLrAmahjDIDVr9quJ01ibOkSS86ZhbuKUJyEZVFGkwTPNZpxiH/ggGHAwaJw==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1767192613; bh=Wnek6org21mAx+Fsck5FhQB 7SG91dB7R4ICYogw7qvc=; b=THMVB/VTItT6h7vdJrMNbUqABhTv4NklLL6CJh9DDAJXUkBHLz ApUtWDd/bBdl1KUhphvUONtrZVMl/cDVIpBQ==; Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2025 15:50:13 +0100 From: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org To: Konrad Dybcio Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Mathieu Poirier , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Stephan Gerhold , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Add MDM9607 In-Reply-To: References: <20251231-mss-v2-0-ae5eafd835c4@mainlining.org> <20251231-mss-v2-3-ae5eafd835c4@mainlining.org> Message-ID: <12650361d3a0e0444e9e10e26c5d5597@mainlining.org> X-Sender: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2025-12-31 13:27, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 12/31/25 3:29 AM, Barnabás Czémán wrote: >> From: Stephan Gerhold >> >> Add support for MDM9607 MSS it have different ACC settings >> and it needs mitigation for inrush current issue. >> >> Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold >> [Reword the commit, add has_ext_bhs_reg] >> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán >> --- > > [...] > >> val = readl(qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl); >> - for (; i >= 0; i--) { >> + for (; i >= reverse; i--) { >> val |= BIT(i); >> writel(val, qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl); >> /* >> @@ -833,6 +847,12 @@ static int q6v5proc_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc) >> val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl); >> udelay(1); >> } >> + for (i = 0; i < reverse; i++) { >> + val |= BIT(i); >> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl); >> + val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + mem_pwr_ctl); > > Downstream doesn't do val |= readl() in the inrush-current-mitigation > case I have checked you are right, thanks. 1_8 reset sequence have it but 1_8_inrush_current have not. As i understanding from downstream it should be handled in both for loop, i could add an if for handle this or implement 1_8_inrush_current reset separately. Which one would be the preferred? > > Konrad