| Message ID | 20201117123415.55105-1-cristian.marussi@arm.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for SCMIv3.0 Voltage Domain Protocol and SCMI-Regulator | expand |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:34:11PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > Add SCMI Voltage Domain protocol support. > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > --- > v4 --> v5 > - removed inline > - moved segmented intervals defines > - fixed some macros complaints by checkpatch > > v3 --> v4 > - avoid fixed sized typing in voltage_info > - avoid coccinelle falde complaints about pointer-sized allocations > > v2 --> v3 > - restrict segmented voltage domain descriptors to one triplet > - removed unneeded inline > - free allocated resources for invalid voltage domain > - added __must_check to info_get voltage operations > - added a few comments > - removed fixed size typing from struct voltage_info > > v1 --> v2 > - fix voltage levels query loop to reload full cmd description > between iterations as reported by Etienne Carriere > - ensure rx buffer is properly sized calli scmi_reset_rx_to_maxsz > between transfers > --- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile | 2 +- > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h | 1 + > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 2 + > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c | 397 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/scmi_protocol.h | 64 +++++ > 5 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile > index bc0d54f8e861..6a2ef63306d6 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ scmi-driver-y = driver.o notify.o > scmi-transport-y = shmem.o > scmi-transport-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX) += mailbox.o > scmi-transport-$(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) += smc.o > -scmi-protocols-y = base.o clock.o perf.o power.o reset.o sensors.o system.o > +scmi-protocols-y = base.o clock.o perf.o power.o reset.o sensors.o system.o voltage.o > scmi-module-objs := $(scmi-bus-y) $(scmi-driver-y) $(scmi-protocols-y) \ > $(scmi-transport-y) > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL) += scmi-module.o > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h > index 65063fa948d4..c0fb45e7c3e8 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h > @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(perf); > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(power); > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(reset); > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(sensors); > +DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(voltage); > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(system); > > #define DEFINE_SCMI_PROTOCOL_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(id, name) \ > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > index 3dfd8b6a0ebf..ada35e63feae 100644 > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > @@ -946,6 +946,7 @@ static int __init scmi_driver_init(void) > scmi_power_register(); > scmi_reset_register(); > scmi_sensors_register(); > + scmi_voltage_register(); > scmi_system_register(); > > return platform_driver_register(&scmi_driver); > @@ -961,6 +962,7 @@ static void __exit scmi_driver_exit(void) > scmi_power_unregister(); > scmi_reset_unregister(); > scmi_sensors_unregister(); > + scmi_voltage_unregister(); > scmi_system_unregister(); > > platform_driver_unregister(&scmi_driver); > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..6b71589e0846 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > @@ -0,0 +1,397 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > +/* > + * System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) Voltage Protocol > + * > + * Copyright (C) 2020 ARM Ltd. > + */ > + > +#include <linux/scmi_protocol.h> > + > +#include "common.h" > + > +#define VOLTAGE_DOMS_NUM_MASK GENMASK(15, 0) > +#define REMAINING_LEVELS_MASK GENMASK(31, 16) > +#define RETURNED_LEVELS_MASK GENMASK(11, 0) > + > +enum scmi_voltage_protocol_cmd { > + VOLTAGE_DOMAIN_ATTRIBUTES = 0x3, > + VOLTAGE_DESCRIBE_LEVELS = 0x4, > + VOLTAGE_CONFIG_SET = 0x5, > + VOLTAGE_CONFIG_GET = 0x6, > + VOLTAGE_LEVEL_SET = 0x7, > + VOLTAGE_LEVEL_GET = 0x8, > +}; > + > +struct scmi_msg_resp_protocol_attributes { > + __le32 attr; > +#define NUM_VOLTAGE_DOMAINS(x) ((u16)(FIELD_GET(VOLTAGE_DOMS_NUM_MASK, (x)))) > +}; > + Sorry but same annoying comment again, drop one element structures. > +struct scmi_msg_resp_domain_attributes { > + __le32 attr; > + u8 name[SCMI_MAX_STR_SIZE]; > +}; > + > +struct scmi_msg_cmd_describe_levels { > + __le32 domain_id; > + __le32 level_index; > +}; > + > +struct scmi_msg_resp_describe_levels { > + __le32 flags; > +#define NUM_REMAINING_LEVELS(f) ((u16)(FIELD_GET(REMAINING_LEVELS_MASK, (f)))) > +#define NUM_RETURNED_LEVELS(f) ((u16)(FIELD_GET(RETURNED_LEVELS_MASK, (f)))) > +#define SUPPORTS_SEGMENTED_LEVELS(f) ((f) & BIT(12)) > + __le32 voltage[]; > +}; > + > +struct scmi_msg_cmd_config_set { > + __le32 domain_id; > + __le32 config; > +}; > + > +struct scmi_msg_cmd_level_set { > + __le32 domain_id; > + __le32 flags; > + __le32 voltage_level; > +}; > + > +struct voltage_info { > + unsigned int version; > + unsigned int num_domains; > + struct scmi_voltage_info **domains; > +}; > + > +static int scmi_protocol_attributes_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle, > + struct voltage_info *vinfo) > +{ > + int ret; > + struct scmi_xfer *t; > + struct scmi_msg_resp_protocol_attributes *resp; > + > + ret = scmi_xfer_get_init(handle, PROTOCOL_ATTRIBUTES, > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, 0, sizeof(*resp), &t); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + resp = t->rx.buf; > + ret = scmi_do_xfer(handle, t); > + if (!ret) > + vinfo->num_domains = > + NUM_VOLTAGE_DOMAINS(le32_to_cpu(resp->attr)); > + > + scmi_xfer_put(handle, t); > + return ret; > +} > + > +static int scmi_init_voltage_levels(struct device *dev, > + struct scmi_voltage_info *v, > + u32 flags, u32 num_returned, > + u32 num_remaining) > +{ > + bool segmented; > + u32 num_levels; > + Why can't you pass the above 2 directly from the caller to this function since they are just used to obtain them here. [...] > +static int scmi_voltage_descriptors_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle, > + struct voltage_info *vinfo) > +{ > + int ret, dom; > + struct scmi_xfer *td, *tl; > + struct device *dev = handle->dev; > + struct scmi_msg_resp_domain_attributes *resp_dom; > + struct scmi_msg_resp_describe_levels *resp_levels; > + > + ret = scmi_xfer_get_init(handle, VOLTAGE_DOMAIN_ATTRIBUTES, > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, sizeof(__le32), > + sizeof(*resp_dom), &td); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + resp_dom = td->rx.buf; > + > + ret = scmi_xfer_get_init(handle, VOLTAGE_DESCRIBE_LEVELS, > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, sizeof(__le64), 0, &tl); > + if (ret) > + goto outd; > + resp_levels = tl->rx.buf; > + > + for (dom = 0; dom < vinfo->num_domains; dom++) { > + u32 desc_index = 0; > + u16 num_returned = 0, num_remaining = 0; > + struct scmi_msg_cmd_describe_levels *cmd; > + struct scmi_voltage_info *v; > + > + /* Retrieve domain attributes at first ... */ > + put_unaligned_le32(dom, td->tx.buf); > + ret = scmi_do_xfer(handle, td); > + /* Skip domain on comms error */ > + if (ret) > + continue; > + > + v = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*v), GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!v) { > + ret = -ENOMEM; > + break; > + } > + Why can't we allocate vinfo->domains real structure instead of pointers and indirection there ? I understand that it helps to manage holes easily but I think that would simplify the dynamic allocation and error handling. It doesn't have to be this complicated(not much but still) IMO. May be scmi_voltage_info_get can use num_levels to either return NULL or vinfo->domains[domain_id] ? Regards, Sudeep
Hi Mark, On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:34:14PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > Add a simple regulator based on SCMI Voltage Domain Protocol. > I was thinking about how to merge this if and when you have reviewed it and happy with it. Is it OK to take via ARM SoC with dependent and other SCMI changes ? Or we can merge the SCMI part next release and the regulator in the following, up to you. -- Regards, Sudeep
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:13:08PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:34:14PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Add a simple regulator based on SCMI Voltage Domain Protocol. > > > > I was thinking about how to merge this if and when you have reviewed it > and happy with it. Is it OK to take via ARM SoC with dependent and other > SCMI changes ? Or we can merge the SCMI part next release and the regulator > in the following, up to you. > Mark, please note that since v4, to address some modifications on DT I added for the core too: [PATCH v5 3/5] regulator: core: add of_match_full_name boolean flag Thanks Cristian > -- > Regards, > Sudeep
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:13:08PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > I was thinking about how to merge this if and when you have reviewed it > and happy with it. Is it OK to take via ARM SoC with dependent and other > SCMI changes ? Or we can merge the SCMI part next release and the regulator > in the following, up to you. I was expecting you to send me a pull request for the firmware bits once you've applied them.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:39:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:13:08PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > I was thinking about how to merge this if and when you have reviewed it > > and happy with it. Is it OK to take via ARM SoC with dependent and other > > SCMI changes ? Or we can merge the SCMI part next release and the regulator > > in the following, up to you. > > I was expecting you to send me a pull request for the firmware bits once > you've applied them. Sure, I can do that.
Hi Sudeep thanks for reviewing. On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 04:08:24PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:34:11PM +0000, Cristian Marussi wrote: > > Add SCMI Voltage Domain protocol support. > > > > Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com> > > --- > > v4 --> v5 > > - removed inline > > - moved segmented intervals defines > > - fixed some macros complaints by checkpatch > > > > v3 --> v4 > > - avoid fixed sized typing in voltage_info > > - avoid coccinelle falde complaints about pointer-sized allocations > > > > v2 --> v3 > > - restrict segmented voltage domain descriptors to one triplet > > - removed unneeded inline > > - free allocated resources for invalid voltage domain > > - added __must_check to info_get voltage operations > > - added a few comments > > - removed fixed size typing from struct voltage_info > > > > v1 --> v2 > > - fix voltage levels query loop to reload full cmd description > > between iterations as reported by Etienne Carriere > > - ensure rx buffer is properly sized calli scmi_reset_rx_to_maxsz > > between transfers > > --- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile | 2 +- > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h | 1 + > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 2 + > > drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c | 397 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/scmi_protocol.h | 64 +++++ > > 5 files changed, 465 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile > > index bc0d54f8e861..6a2ef63306d6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile > > @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ scmi-driver-y = driver.o notify.o > > scmi-transport-y = shmem.o > > scmi-transport-$(CONFIG_MAILBOX) += mailbox.o > > scmi-transport-$(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY) += smc.o > > -scmi-protocols-y = base.o clock.o perf.o power.o reset.o sensors.o system.o > > +scmi-protocols-y = base.o clock.o perf.o power.o reset.o sensors.o system.o voltage.o > > scmi-module-objs := $(scmi-bus-y) $(scmi-driver-y) $(scmi-protocols-y) \ > > $(scmi-transport-y) > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_SCMI_PROTOCOL) += scmi-module.o > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h > > index 65063fa948d4..c0fb45e7c3e8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h > > @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@ DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(perf); > > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(power); > > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(reset); > > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(sensors); > > +DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(voltage); > > DECLARE_SCMI_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(system); > > > > #define DEFINE_SCMI_PROTOCOL_REGISTER_UNREGISTER(id, name) \ > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > index 3dfd8b6a0ebf..ada35e63feae 100644 > > --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c > > @@ -946,6 +946,7 @@ static int __init scmi_driver_init(void) > > scmi_power_register(); > > scmi_reset_register(); > > scmi_sensors_register(); > > + scmi_voltage_register(); > > scmi_system_register(); > > > > return platform_driver_register(&scmi_driver); > > @@ -961,6 +962,7 @@ static void __exit scmi_driver_exit(void) > > scmi_power_unregister(); > > scmi_reset_unregister(); > > scmi_sensors_unregister(); > > + scmi_voltage_unregister(); > > scmi_system_unregister(); > > > > platform_driver_unregister(&scmi_driver); > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..6b71589e0846 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c > > @@ -0,0 +1,397 @@ > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > +/* > > + * System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) Voltage Protocol > > + * > > + * Copyright (C) 2020 ARM Ltd. > > + */ > > + > > +#include <linux/scmi_protocol.h> > > + > > +#include "common.h" > > + > > +#define VOLTAGE_DOMS_NUM_MASK GENMASK(15, 0) > > +#define REMAINING_LEVELS_MASK GENMASK(31, 16) > > +#define RETURNED_LEVELS_MASK GENMASK(11, 0) > > + > > +enum scmi_voltage_protocol_cmd { > > + VOLTAGE_DOMAIN_ATTRIBUTES = 0x3, > > + VOLTAGE_DESCRIBE_LEVELS = 0x4, > > + VOLTAGE_CONFIG_SET = 0x5, > > + VOLTAGE_CONFIG_GET = 0x6, > > + VOLTAGE_LEVEL_SET = 0x7, > > + VOLTAGE_LEVEL_GET = 0x8, > > +}; > > + > > +struct scmi_msg_resp_protocol_attributes { > > + __le32 attr; > > +#define NUM_VOLTAGE_DOMAINS(x) ((u16)(FIELD_GET(VOLTAGE_DOMS_NUM_MASK, (x)))) > > +}; > > + > > Sorry but same annoying comment again, drop one element structures. > I'll do. > > +struct scmi_msg_resp_domain_attributes { > > + __le32 attr; > > + u8 name[SCMI_MAX_STR_SIZE]; > > +}; > > + > > +struct scmi_msg_cmd_describe_levels { > > + __le32 domain_id; > > + __le32 level_index; > > +}; > > + > > +struct scmi_msg_resp_describe_levels { > > + __le32 flags; > > +#define NUM_REMAINING_LEVELS(f) ((u16)(FIELD_GET(REMAINING_LEVELS_MASK, (f)))) > > +#define NUM_RETURNED_LEVELS(f) ((u16)(FIELD_GET(RETURNED_LEVELS_MASK, (f)))) > > +#define SUPPORTS_SEGMENTED_LEVELS(f) ((f) & BIT(12)) > > + __le32 voltage[]; > > +}; > > + > > +struct scmi_msg_cmd_config_set { > > + __le32 domain_id; > > + __le32 config; > > +}; > > + > > +struct scmi_msg_cmd_level_set { > > + __le32 domain_id; > > + __le32 flags; > > + __le32 voltage_level; > > +}; > > + > > +struct voltage_info { > > + unsigned int version; > > + unsigned int num_domains; > > + struct scmi_voltage_info **domains; > > +}; > > + > > +static int scmi_protocol_attributes_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle, > > + struct voltage_info *vinfo) > > +{ > > + int ret; > > + struct scmi_xfer *t; > > + struct scmi_msg_resp_protocol_attributes *resp; > > + > > + ret = scmi_xfer_get_init(handle, PROTOCOL_ATTRIBUTES, > > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, 0, sizeof(*resp), &t); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + resp = t->rx.buf; > > + ret = scmi_do_xfer(handle, t); > > + if (!ret) > > + vinfo->num_domains = > > + NUM_VOLTAGE_DOMAINS(le32_to_cpu(resp->attr)); > > + > > + scmi_xfer_put(handle, t); > > + return ret; > > +} > > + > > +static int scmi_init_voltage_levels(struct device *dev, > > + struct scmi_voltage_info *v, > > + u32 flags, u32 num_returned, > > + u32 num_remaining) > > +{ > > + bool segmented; > > + u32 num_levels; > > + > > Why can't you pass the above 2 directly from the caller to this function > since they are just used to obtain them here. > I can and I'll do for segmented, num_levels I need to have it split in returned and remaining here to check the holy triplet is fine. (assuming I want to keep all the checkery inside this func) > > [...] > > > +static int scmi_voltage_descriptors_get(const struct scmi_handle *handle, > > + struct voltage_info *vinfo) > > +{ > > + int ret, dom; > > + struct scmi_xfer *td, *tl; > > + struct device *dev = handle->dev; > > + struct scmi_msg_resp_domain_attributes *resp_dom; > > + struct scmi_msg_resp_describe_levels *resp_levels; > > + > > + ret = scmi_xfer_get_init(handle, VOLTAGE_DOMAIN_ATTRIBUTES, > > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, sizeof(__le32), > > + sizeof(*resp_dom), &td); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + resp_dom = td->rx.buf; > > + > > + ret = scmi_xfer_get_init(handle, VOLTAGE_DESCRIBE_LEVELS, > > + SCMI_PROTOCOL_VOLTAGE, sizeof(__le64), 0, &tl); > > + if (ret) > > + goto outd; > > + resp_levels = tl->rx.buf; > > + > > + for (dom = 0; dom < vinfo->num_domains; dom++) { > > + u32 desc_index = 0; > > + u16 num_returned = 0, num_remaining = 0; > > + struct scmi_msg_cmd_describe_levels *cmd; > > + struct scmi_voltage_info *v; > > + > > + /* Retrieve domain attributes at first ... */ > > + put_unaligned_le32(dom, td->tx.buf); > > + ret = scmi_do_xfer(handle, td); > > + /* Skip domain on comms error */ > > + if (ret) > > + continue; > > + > > + v = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*v), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!v) { > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > + break; > > + } > > + > > Why can't we allocate vinfo->domains real structure instead of pointers > and indirection there ? I understand that it helps to manage holes easily > but I think that would simplify the dynamic allocation and error handling. > It doesn't have to be this complicated(not much but still) IMO. > > May be scmi_voltage_info_get can use num_levels to either return NULL > or vinfo->domains[domain_id] ? > Yes it was for the holes, but I'll do allocating contiguously and checking on num_levels != 0 as you suggested Thanks Cristian > Regards, > Sudeep
Hi, this series introduces the support for the new SCMI Voltage Domain Protocol defined by the upcoming SCMIv3.0 specification, whose BETA release is available at [1]. Afterwards, a new generic SCMI Regulator driver is developed on top of the new SCMI VD Protocol. in V4 Patch 3/5 introduced a needed fix in Regulator framework to cope with generic named nodes. The series is currently based on for-next/scmi [2] on top of: commit b141fca08207 ("firmware: arm_scmi: Fix missing destroy_workqueue()") Any feedback welcome, Thanks, Cristian --- v4 --> v5 - rebased - VD Protocol - removed inline - moved segmented intervals defines - fixed some macros complaints by checkpatch v3 --> v4 - DT bindings - using generic node names - listing explicitly subset of supported regulators bindings - SCMI Regulator - using of_match_full_name core regulator flag - avoid coccinelle false flag complaints - VD Protocol - avoid coccinelle false flag complaints - avoiding fixed size typing v2 --> v3 - DT bindings - avoid awkard examples based on _cpu/_gpu regulators - SCMI Regulator - remove multiple linear mappings support - removed duplicated voltage name printout - added a few comments - simplified return path in scmi_reg_set_voltage_sel() - VD Protocol - restrict segmented voltage domain descriptors to one triplet - removed unneeded inline - free allocated resources for invalid voltage domain - added __must_check to info_get voltage operations - added a few comments - removed fixed size typing from struct voltage_info v1 --> v2 - rebased on for-next/scmi v5.10 - DT bindings - removed any reference to negative voltages - SCMI Regulator - removed duplicate regulator naming - removed redundant .get/set_voltage ops: only _sel variants implemented - removed condexpr on fail path to increase readability - VD Protocol - fix voltage levels query loop to reload full cmd description between iterations as reported by Etienne Carriere - ensure transport rx buffer is properly sized calli scmi_reset_rx_to_maxsz between transfers [1]:https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0056/c/ [2]:https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sudeep.holla/linux.git/log/?h=for-next/scmi Cristian Marussi (5): firmware: arm_scmi: Add Voltage Domain Support firmware: arm_scmi: add SCMI Voltage Domain devname regulator: core: add of_match_full_name boolean flag regulator: add SCMI driver dt-bindings: arm: add support for SCMI Regulators .../devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 43 ++ drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/common.h | 1 + drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/driver.c | 3 + drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c | 397 +++++++++++++++++ drivers/regulator/Kconfig | 9 + drivers/regulator/Makefile | 1 + drivers/regulator/of_regulator.c | 8 +- drivers/regulator/scmi-regulator.c | 409 ++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/regulator/driver.h | 3 + include/linux/scmi_protocol.h | 64 +++ 11 files changed, 937 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/voltage.c create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/scmi-regulator.c