On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 04:04:50PM +0200, Barnabás Czémán wrote: > 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.
It's not fine, if we once get a platform which has both VDDMX_VFL and VDDMD. THe whole point of having this generic RPMPD_ list is to have a set of indices which can be used by any new platform being supported. So, indeed, 10 is a correct value here. > > > > 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. -- With best wishes Dmitry
