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 0B876374726; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:22:22 +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=1774686145; cv=none; b=Gmia1xgYKR0OuPyM1Pjb0Hl+AQY7HYw/wug1wEH9j8B82iZScmxGKDo3OUMDKTftCvcDjlCC/yJ7AG1Ri5dxLgdEFlsA4kVrZ6/wF3UigyhXxR3ksAs+/HXdO4sMJ+ztEpoj+LIc6MIXTUuwUGZd7exCDtmooDmUT0PtHvWuxKY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1774686145; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KN9F0rAgEEeooiwR8R0K20dqkZ/BBUYU8vQkKLLJeKs=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=rO5CSJl15DD+T4Dwq1gjuIZ4Qtxk9GBSkFuIrTjrwN1t6EFbw82VB3HlmTJhxhRnhZVuW1EeugdbwTUSiucCW/BFjpSvxJmY2mkWka2UqNLymSrGKS2TwSA+9+/v3PGJQ7+URFPiUVwnvCNQUWa0QWdPpcyGbaq6jjlu3exrqZw= 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=YII2ExQh; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b=wKxJTK1t; 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="YII2ExQh"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.b="wKxJTK1t" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1774686139; bh=W0G6vVypT7WW4cj/8+0X35c 3ULPZjzWVK3rrCsz2NtY=; b=YII2ExQhlJZqkqhu6OacYAKhnb/ibgXffuiZdZ5kqUDwyexuOD iNxw57wtIEPPJWyJ7UqSWvgSJ+/JaHZrFT9VELAsKdkkzEkuuYlIFLIWj8/6oonDLh9FNzZdmLj ffkj3Vl83kM/PxWKm29/P4k0IjxRKILEhmnSLwmhmN6v1khN97OP5bZm7mWnGw3ZqUAA0iRRYfC 7yqPS0EtwDO7kdHXBDXmiNTXn67jOkNiMhGnUkeFyZtpxAA33nxfI60K6AhmYmAIiR2LJPYgzpg BcT3JlSm8iZXJT+W7wfH56WSbirJ8jfqbvOrR8xFEoyFYnZ2VQc0PFUn28KsteiQf0Q==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1774686139; bh=W0G6vVypT7WW4cj/8+0X35c 3ULPZjzWVK3rrCsz2NtY=; b=wKxJTK1tLuFEEM71aPfxksWqmhXhO6ZV0qnrHl7Va3We0Onij6 VqQacg8iTqUJ8nttC9qGQKcaP+9uwjEG5oAw==; Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 09:22:19 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Barnab=C3=A1s_Cz=C3=A9m=C3=A1n?= To: Dmitry Baryshkov Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Bjorn Andersson , Ulf Hansson , Mathieu Poirier , Konrad Dybcio , Stephan Gerhold , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: power: qcom-rpmpd: Split MSM8953 and SDM632 In-Reply-To: References: <20260327-sdm632-rpmpd-v1-0-6098dc997d66@mainlining.org> <20260327-sdm632-rpmpd-v1-1-6098dc997d66@mainlining.org> Message-ID: <39a320e472ddc6d44c950a995b577e77@mainlining.org> X-Sender: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2026-03-27 21:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 09:11:43PM +0100, Barnabás Czémán wrote: >> Remove modem related bindings from MSM8953 rpmpd because MSM8953 MSS >> is using mss-supply as a regulator usually it is pm8953_s1. >> Split SDM632 bindings from MSM8953 because SDM632 is using mss-supply >> as a pm domain. >> >> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 1 + >> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 20 >> +++++++++++++------- >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >> index 8174ceeab572..659936d6a46e 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml >> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ properties: >> - qcom,sc7280-rpmhpd >> - qcom,sc8180x-rpmhpd >> - qcom,sc8280xp-rpmhpd >> + - qcom,sdm632-rpmpd >> - qcom,sdm660-rpmpd >> - qcom,sdm670-rpmhpd >> - qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >> b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >> index 4371ac941f29..2d82434b993c 100644 >> --- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h >> @@ -84,13 +84,11 @@ >> #define QM215_VDDMX_AO MSM8917_VDDMX_AO >> >> /* MSM8953 Power Domain Indexes */ >> -#define MSM8953_VDDMD 0 >> -#define MSM8953_VDDMD_AO 1 >> -#define MSM8953_VDDCX 2 >> -#define MSM8953_VDDCX_AO 3 >> -#define MSM8953_VDDCX_VFL 4 >> -#define MSM8953_VDDMX 5 >> -#define MSM8953_VDDMX_AO 6 >> +#define MSM8953_VDDCX RPMPD_VDDCX >> +#define MSM8953_VDDCX_AO RPMPD_VDDCX_AO >> +#define MSM8953_VDDCX_VFL RPMPD_VDDCX_VFL >> +#define MSM8953_VDDMX RPMPD_VDDMX >> +#define MSM8953_VDDMX_AO RPMPD_VDDMX_AO > > Well, no. This is an ABI break. It will make previous DT to stop from > working. You can drop unused indices, but you can not change the values > used by the existing domains. Do these indices never can be changed? > >> >> /* MSM8974 Power Domain Indexes */ >> #define MSM8974_VDDCX 0 >> @@ -156,6 +154,14 @@ >> #define QCS404_LPIMX 5 >> #define QCS404_LPIMX_VFL 6 >> >> +/* SDM632 Power Domain Indexes */ >> +#define SDM632_VDDMD 0 >> +#define SDM632_VDDCX 1 >> +#define SDM632_VDDCX_AO 2 >> +#define SDM632_VDDCX_VFL 3 >> +#define SDM632_VDDMX 4 >> +#define SDM632_VDDMX_AO 5 > > Please use RPMHPD_* instead of introducing new entries. I do not understand completely, should I use RPHPD bindings in rpmpd driver or I should use rpmhpd driver for SDM632? > >> + >> /* SDM660 Power Domains */ >> #define SDM660_VDDCX RPMPD_VDDCX >> #define SDM660_VDDCX_AO RPMPD_VDDCX_AO >> >> -- >> 2.53.0 >>