Re: [PATCH 1/6] soc: qcom: Move some socinfo defines to the header, expand them

Konrad Dybcio
2024-04-11T20:05:35Z

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