On 2026-10-02 11:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 12:38:29AM +0200, Barnabás Czémán wrote:
Define RPMPD_VDDMD can be used for SDM439 and SDM632 MSS.
There is no sdm439 RPMPD... The SDM632 is added later and bindings
There will be.
header come with the compatible patch. Squash these.
You have previously commented how that is connected to the indices.
Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <[email protected]>
---
include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
index 4371ac941f29..beb066b3aa8c 100644
--- a/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
+++ b/include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
#define RPMPD_VDDMX 3
#define RPMPD_VDDMX_AO 4
#define RPMPD_VDDMX_VFL 5
+#define RPMPD_VDDMD 5
Problem is that it is platform specific and comment in that file says
"don't do it" yet you do it.
It is not completely platform specific and if you have check the
previous
reviews Dmitry was asking me to define it. If i set it 10 what will be
very safe for every platform i will get warning messages.
By the way 5 is fine for SDM429, SDM439 and SDM632.
So the device has nbo MX? Why commit msg is silent on this? Explains
not much except repeating the diff and referencing users which are
almost obvious if this is properly squashed.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
