Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: - [Low] The comment regarding Vape_esram0_pwr contradicts the implementation of ux500_pm_domain_esram_12. --
commit e7c9ddf5e852fa7ba6bbf083dd8b845efaaf86e5 Author: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> pmdomain: st: ux500: Implement more power domains This starts to implement the power domains that are just skeleton implementations right now. > diff --git a/drivers/pmdomain/st/ste-ux500-pm-domain.c > b/drivers/pmdomain/st/ste-ux500-pm-domain.c > index 6896cb4a7b716..7230010046908 100644 > --- a/drivers/pmdomain/st/ste-ux500-pm-domain.c > +++ b/drivers/pmdomain/st/ste-ux500-pm-domain.c > @@ -41,14 +41,137 @@ static int pd_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *domain) > return 0; > } > > +/* > + * Apart from these voltage domains there is also VSAFE which is always > + * on. Vape_esram0_pwr for eSRAM0 is connected to VSAFE. > + */ > static struct generic_pm_domain ux500_pm_domain_vape = { [ ... ] > +static struct generic_pm_domain ux500_pm_domain_b2r2_mcde = { > + /* Vape_DSS_pwr DSS (display subsystem) */ > + .name = "B2R2_MCDE", > + .power_off = pd_power_off, > + .power_on = pd_power_on, > +}; > + > +static struct generic_pm_domain ux500_pm_domain_esram_12 = { > + /* Vape_esram0_pwr, Vape_esram1_pwr */ > + .name = "ESRAM_12", [Severity: Low] Is this comment accurate? An earlier comment states that Vape_esram0_pwr for eSRAM0 is connected to the always-on VSAFE domain, but it is listed here as part of the switchable ESRAM_12 power domain. Should this comment refer to Vape_esram1_pwr and Vape_esram2_pwr instead? > + .power_off = pd_power_off, > + .power_on = pd_power_on, > +}; -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=3
