| Message ID | 1488365164-22861-4-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Neil, Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: > The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. First of all, any reason you're upper-casing Mali in the commit message? ARM doesn't. > > The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. The GXBB part looks fine on a quick look. > > For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this > patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific > dtsi files. This part is slightly confusing though. What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. Regards, Andreas > > Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi | 1 + > arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi | 1 + > 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi [...] > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi > index 615308e..5a90e30 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ > */ > > #include "meson-gxl.dtsi" > +#include "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" > > / { > compatible = "amlogic,s905d", "amlogic,meson-gxl"; > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi > index 08237ee..0f78d83 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ > */ > > #include "meson-gxl.dtsi" > +#include "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" > > / { > compatible = "amlogic,s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl";
Hi Andreas, On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Hi Neil, > > Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >> The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. > > First of all, any reason you're upper-casing Mali in the commit message? > ARM doesn't. No reason, only a type, indeed it was lower-casing on the v1. Will fix in v2. > >> >> The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. > > The GXBB part looks fine on a quick look. > >> >> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >> dtsi files. > > This part is slightly confusing though. > > What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by > overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a > GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. > > In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL > concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary > .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a > meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit > the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into > meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While > it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. The GXL and GXM differences are very small : - They share the same clock tree - They share the same pinctrl and even the same pinout (S905D and S912 are pin-to-pin compatible) - They share all the peripherals The only changes are : - Enhanced video encoding and decoding support, this will need a family-specific compatible when pushed - Slightly differences in the Video Processing Unit, this is why I introduced family-specific compatibles - A secondary Cortex-A53 cluster - A secondary SCPI cpufreq clock entry - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, since it could lead to some confusion. Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. Kevin, what's your thought about this ? Neil > Regards, > Andreas > >> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi | 1 + >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi > [...] >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi >> index 615308e..5a90e30 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi >> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include "meson-gxl.dtsi" >> +#include "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" >> >> / { >> compatible = "amlogic,s905d", "amlogic,meson-gxl"; >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi >> index 08237ee..0f78d83 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi >> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include "meson-gxl.dtsi" >> +#include "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" >> >> / { >> compatible = "amlogic,s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl"; >
Hi, Am 02.03.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Neil Armstrong: > On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >>> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >>> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >>> dtsi files. >> >> This part is slightly confusing though. >> >> What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by >> overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a >> GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. >> >> In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL >> concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary >> .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a >> meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit >> the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into >> meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While >> it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. > > The GXL and GXM differences are very small : > - They share the same clock tree > - They share the same pinctrl and even the same pinout (S905D and S912 are pin-to-pin compatible) > - They share all the peripherals > > The only changes are : > - Enhanced video encoding and decoding support, this will need a family-specific compatible when pushed > - Slightly differences in the Video Processing Unit, this is why I introduced family-specific compatibles > - A secondary Cortex-A53 cluster > - A secondary SCPI cpufreq clock entry > - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space > > This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, > but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, > since it could lead to some confusion. > > Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream > and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. OK, my question really was specific to Mali differences. :) > Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we > have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. What about a /delete-node/ &mali; in meson-gxm.dtsi? That would avoid having any new .dtsi. Regards, Andreas
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: > Hi Andreas, > On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Hi Neil, >> >> Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >>> The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. >> >> First of all, any reason you're upper-casing Mali in the commit message? >> ARM doesn't. > > No reason, only a type, indeed it was lower-casing on the v1. > Will fix in v2. > >> >>> >>> The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. >> >> The GXBB part looks fine on a quick look. >> >>> >>> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >>> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >>> dtsi files. >> >> This part is slightly confusing though. >> >> What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by >> overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a >> GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. >> >> In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL >> concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary >> .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a >> meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit >> the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into >> meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While >> it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. > > The GXL and GXM differences are very small : > - They share the same clock tree > - They share the same pinctrl and even the same pinout (S905D and S912 are pin-to-pin compatible) > - They share all the peripherals > > The only changes are : > - Enhanced video encoding and decoding support, this will need a family-specific compatible when pushed > - Slightly differences in the Video Processing Unit, this is why I introduced family-specific compatibles > - A secondary Cortex-A53 cluster > - A secondary SCPI cpufreq clock entry > - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space > > This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, > but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, > since it could lead to some confusion. > > Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream > and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. > > Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we > have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. > > Kevin, what's your thought about this ? I don't have a strong preference. I'm OK with a separate Mali .dtsi due to the signficant overlap between GXL/GXM in terms of clocks, interrupts etc. However, if the plan is to #include this from GXM .dts files, whould a better name be meson-gx-mali.dtsi? Kevin
Am 03.03.2017 um 20:29 schrieb Kevin Hilman: > Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: >> On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >>>> The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. [...] >>>> The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. [...] >>>> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >>>> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >>>> dtsi files. >>> >>> This part is slightly confusing though. >>> >>> What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by >>> overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a >>> GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. >>> >>> In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL >>> concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary >>> .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a >>> meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit >>> the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into >>> meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While >>> it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. [...] >> The only changes are : [...] >> - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space >> >> This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, >> but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, >> since it could lead to some confusion. >> >> Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream >> and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. >> >> Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we >> have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. >> >> Kevin, what's your thought about this ? > > I don't have a strong preference. I'm OK with a separate Mali .dtsi due > to the signficant overlap between GXL/GXM in terms of clocks, interrupts > etc. > > However, if the plan is to #include this from GXM .dts files, whould a > better name be meson-gx-mali.dtsi? I thought the purpose was specifically to not have GXM include it because it uses a Midgard IP. If you want to share the fragment with GXBB too (gx), we should rather use meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, which would differentiate from GXM's Midgard while still allowing for variation on the 4xx side (e.g., 470). Regards, Andreas
On 03/04/2017 01:38 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 03.03.2017 um 20:29 schrieb Kevin Hilman: >> Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: >>> On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>> Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >>>>> The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. > [...] >>>>> The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. > [...] >>>>> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >>>>> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >>>>> dtsi files. >>>> >>>> This part is slightly confusing though. >>>> >>>> What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by >>>> overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a >>>> GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. >>>> >>>> In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL >>>> concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary >>>> .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a >>>> meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit >>>> the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into >>>> meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While >>>> it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. > [...] >>> The only changes are : > [...] >>> - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space >>> >>> This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, >>> but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, >>> since it could lead to some confusion. >>> >>> Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream >>> and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. >>> >>> Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we >>> have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. >>> >>> Kevin, what's your thought about this ? >> >> I don't have a strong preference. I'm OK with a separate Mali .dtsi due >> to the signficant overlap between GXL/GXM in terms of clocks, interrupts >> etc. >> >> However, if the plan is to #include this from GXM .dts files, whould a >> better name be meson-gx-mali.dtsi? > > I thought the purpose was specifically to not have GXM include it > because it uses a Midgard IP. > > If you want to share the fragment with GXBB too (gx), we should rather > use meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, which would differentiate from GXM's > Midgard while still allowing for variation on the 4xx side (e.g., 470). > > Regards, > Andreas > Exact, there is no plan to include it from GXM. I'm not fan of having meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, we should still need some attributes additions for the clocks to the mali node in the gxbb dtsi and each s905x and s905d dtsi files. I'm not sure this is even cleaner... Neil
Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: > On 03/04/2017 01:38 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 03.03.2017 um 20:29 schrieb Kevin Hilman: >>> Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: >>>> On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>>> Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >>>>>> The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. >> [...] >>>>>> The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. >> [...] >>>>>> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >>>>>> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >>>>>> dtsi files. >>>>> >>>>> This part is slightly confusing though. >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by >>>>> overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a >>>>> GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. >>>>> >>>>> In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL >>>>> concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary >>>>> .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a >>>>> meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit >>>>> the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into >>>>> meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While >>>>> it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. >> [...] >>>> The only changes are : >> [...] >>>> - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space >>>> >>>> This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, >>>> but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, >>>> since it could lead to some confusion. >>>> >>>> Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream >>>> and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we >>>> have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. >>>> >>>> Kevin, what's your thought about this ? >>> >>> I don't have a strong preference. I'm OK with a separate Mali .dtsi due >>> to the signficant overlap between GXL/GXM in terms of clocks, interrupts >>> etc. >>> >>> However, if the plan is to #include this from GXM .dts files, whould a >>> better name be meson-gx-mali.dtsi? >> >> I thought the purpose was specifically to not have GXM include it >> because it uses a Midgard IP. >> >> If you want to share the fragment with GXBB too (gx), we should rather >> use meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, which would differentiate from GXM's >> Midgard while still allowing for variation on the 4xx side (e.g., 470). >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >> > > Exact, there is no plan to include it from GXM. > > I'm not fan of having meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, we should still need some attributes additions for > the clocks to the mali node in the gxbb dtsi and each s905x and s905d dtsi files. > I'm not sure this is even cleaner... OK, I misunderstood the intent of having it separated from out from the GXL .dsti then. Could you please clarify? Kevin
On 03/06/2017 06:27 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: > >> On 03/04/2017 01:38 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Am 03.03.2017 um 20:29 schrieb Kevin Hilman: >>>> Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> writes: >>>>> On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>>>> Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong: >>>>>>> The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. >>> [...] >>>>>>> The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. >>> [...] >>>>>>> For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this >>>>>>> patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific >>>>>>> dtsi files. >>>>>> >>>>>> This part is slightly confusing though. >>>>>> >>>>>> What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by >>>>>> overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a >>>>>> GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way. >>>>>> >>>>>> In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL >>>>>> concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary >>>>>> .dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a >>>>>> meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit >>>>>> the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into >>>>>> meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While >>>>>> it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner. >>> [...] >>>>> The only changes are : >>> [...] >>>>> - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space >>>>> >>>>> This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi, >>>>> but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi, >>>>> since it could lead to some confusion. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream >>>>> and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now. >>>>> >>>>> Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we >>>>> have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912. >>>>> >>>>> Kevin, what's your thought about this ? >>>> >>>> I don't have a strong preference. I'm OK with a separate Mali .dtsi due >>>> to the signficant overlap between GXL/GXM in terms of clocks, interrupts >>>> etc. >>>> >>>> However, if the plan is to #include this from GXM .dts files, whould a >>>> better name be meson-gx-mali.dtsi? >>> >>> I thought the purpose was specifically to not have GXM include it >>> because it uses a Midgard IP. >>> >>> If you want to share the fragment with GXBB too (gx), we should rather >>> use meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, which would differentiate from GXM's >>> Midgard while still allowing for variation on the 4xx side (e.g., 470). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andreas >>> >> >> Exact, there is no plan to include it from GXM. >> >> I'm not fan of having meson-gx-mali-utgard.dtsi, we should still need some attributes additions for >> the clocks to the mali node in the gxbb dtsi and each s905x and s905d dtsi files. >> I'm not sure this is even cleaner... > > OK, I misunderstood the intent of having it separated from out from the > GXL .dsti then. Could you please clarify? > > Kevin Hi, Indeed, my changelog was not really clear, here is the reworded one that will land in v2 : " This patch add nodes for the Mali-450 MP3 GPU present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. For GXBB, the node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. Fox GXL, since the GXM dtsi is a superset of the GXL dtsi, the Mali node is added to the GXL SoC specific dtsi files via an intermediate "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" file to avoid having an invalid Mali-450 node in the GXM device tree. " Thanks, Neil
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi index b353073..4f7ae6a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi @@ -474,6 +474,43 @@ }; }; +&apb { + mali: gpu@c0000 { + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-mali", "arm,mali-450"; + reg = <0x0 0xc0000 0x0 0x40000>; + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 160 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 161 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 162 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 163 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 164 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 165 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 166 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 167 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 168 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 169 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; + interrupt-names = "gp", "gpmmu", "pp", "pmu", + "pp0", "ppmmu0", "pp1", "ppmmu1", + "pp2", "ppmmu2"; + clocks = <&clkc CLKID_CLK81>, <&clkc CLKID_MALI>; + clock-names = "bus", "core"; + + /* + * Mali clocking is provided by two identical clock paths + * MALI_0 and MALI_1 muxed to a single clock by a glitch + * free mux to safely change frequency while running. + */ + assigned-clocks = <&clkc CLKID_MALI_0_SEL>, + <&clkc CLKID_MALI_0>, + <&clkc CLKID_MALI>; /* Glitch free mux */ + assigned-clock-parents = <&clkc CLKID_FCLK_DIV3>, + <0>, /* Do Nothing */ + <&clkc CLKID_MALI_0>; + assigned-clock-rates = <0>, /* Do Nothing */ + <666666666>, + <0>; /* Do Nothing */ + }; +}; + &i2c_A { clocks = <&clkc CLKID_I2C>; }; diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f06cc234 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +/* + * Copyright (c) 2017 BayLibre SAS + * Author: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> + * + * SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) + */ + +&apb { + mali: gpu@c0000 { + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-mali", "arm,mali-450"; + reg = <0x0 0xc0000 0x0 0x40000>; + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 160 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 161 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 162 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 163 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 164 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 165 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 166 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 167 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 168 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 169 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; + interrupt-names = "gp", "gpmmu", "pp", "pmu", + "pp0", "ppmmu0", "pp1", "ppmmu1", + "pp2", "ppmmu2"; + clocks = <&clkc CLKID_CLK81>, <&clkc CLKID_MALI>; + clock-names = "bus", "core"; + + /* + * Mali clocking is provided by two identical clock paths + * MALI_0 and MALI_1 muxed to a single clock by a glitch + * free mux to safely change frequency while running. + */ + assigned-clocks = <&clkc CLKID_MALI_0_SEL>, + <&clkc CLKID_MALI_0>, + <&clkc CLKID_MALI>; /* Glitch free mux */ + assigned-clock-parents = <&clkc CLKID_FCLK_DIV3>, + <0>, /* Do Nothing */ + <&clkc CLKID_MALI_0>; + assigned-clock-rates = <0>, /* Do Nothing */ + <666666666>, + <0>; /* Do Nothing */ + }; +}; diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi index 615308e..5a90e30 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ */ #include "meson-gxl.dtsi" +#include "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" / { compatible = "amlogic,s905d", "amlogic,meson-gxl"; diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi index 08237ee..0f78d83 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ */ #include "meson-gxl.dtsi" +#include "meson-gxl-mali.dtsi" / { compatible = "amlogic,s905x", "amlogic,meson-gxl";
The same MALI-450 MP3 GPU is present in the GXBB and GXL SoCs. The node is simply added in the meson-gxbb.dtsi file. For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific dtsi files. Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905d.dtsi | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-s905x.dtsi | 1 + 4 files changed, 82 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxl-mali.dtsi