Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ASoC: dt-bindings: qcom: add LPASS LPR vote clock ID

[Prasad Kumpatla <prasad.kumpatla@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 7/16/2026 1:31 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 07:02:40PM +0530, Prasad Kumpatla wrote:
>> Add a new clock ID, LPASS_HW_LPR_VOTE, to represent the LPASS low-power
>> resource (LPR) vote through the PRM interface.
>>
>> The LPASS PRM supports a resource voting mechanism to control low-power
>> states via PARAM_ID_RSC_CPU_LPR. Exposing this as a q6prm clock ID allows
>> clients to request the LPR vote using the existing qcom,q6prm clock
>> provider interface.
>>
>> This functionality is required on newer platforms (e.g. Hawi) where LPASS
>> clients need to explicitly manage LPR resource voting via PRM.
>>
>> Also update Q6AFE_MAX_CLK_ID to account for the newly added clock ID.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Prasad Kumpatla <prasad.kumpatla@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>   include/dt-bindings/sound/qcom,q6dsp-lpass-ports.h | 3 ++-
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/sound/qcom,q6dsp-lpass-ports.h b/include/dt-bindings/sound/qcom,q6dsp-lpass-ports.h
>> index 45850f2d4..06ca2c287 100644
>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/sound/qcom,q6dsp-lpass-ports.h
>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/sound/qcom,q6dsp-lpass-ports.h
>> @@ -236,8 +236,9 @@
>>   #define LPASS_HW_AVTIMER_VOTE		101
>>   #define LPASS_HW_MACRO_VOTE		102
>>   #define LPASS_HW_DCODEC_VOTE		103
>> +#define LPASS_HW_LPR_VOTE		104
>>   
>> -#define Q6AFE_MAX_CLK_ID			104
>> +#define Q6AFE_MAX_CLK_ID			105
> Nope, ABI break. You cannot change that and as stated many times already
> - if you need it, then it is not a binding.

Hi Krzysztof,

Thanks for the review.

LPASS_HW_LPR_VOTE is intended to be consumed via the DT clock
specifier, similar to LPASS_HW_MACRO_VOTE and LPASS_HW_DCODEC_VOTE.
My intention was therefore to add a new DT-visible clock ID.

Regarding the ABI concern, would assigning LPASS_HW_LPR_VOTE from
the currently unused range (for example 100) and keeping
Q6AFE_MAX_CLK_ID unchanged address the issue, or is the concern
that LPASS_HW_LPR_VOTE should not be exposed as a DT binding at all?
If not, could you please advise the appropriate place/example for
defining this CLK ID?

Thanks,
Prasad
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>