On 02/24, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote: > > > On 23/02/16 16:13, Georgi Djakov wrote: > >+/* msm8916 */ > >+#define RPM_XO_CLK_SRC 0 > >+#define RPM_XO_A_CLK_SRC 1 > >+#define RPM_PCNOC_CLK 2 > >+#define RPM_PCNOC_A_CLK 3 > >+#define RPM_SNOC_CLK 4 > >+#define RPM_SNOC_A_CLK 5 > >+#define RPM_BIMC_CLK 6 > >+#define RPM_BIMC_A_CLK 7 > >+#define RPM_QDSS_CLK 8 > >+#define RPM_QDSS_A_CLK 9 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK1 10 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK1_A 11 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK2 12 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK2_A 13 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK1 14 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK1_A 15 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK2 16 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK2_A 17 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK1_PIN 18 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK1_A_PIN 19 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK2_PIN 20 > >+#define RPM_BB_CLK2_A_PIN 21 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK1_PIN 22 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK1_A_PIN 23 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK2_PIN 24 > >+#define RPM_RF_CLK2_A_PIN 25 > >+ > > These names are more generic, and offsets are specific to the 8916 > chip, adding soc prefix to these would make more sense and also set > a rule for the next soc support patches too. >
Do these ever change though? Maybe we should remove the msm8916 specificness and let the rpm clk consumers choose the clks they want to use. Combine all the different SoCs into the same "RPM clk" numberspace so that we don't have a handful of different headers and different RPM clk definitions in the driver when they're almost the same across chips. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
