Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 6 Nov 2023 20:15:57 +0530 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: qcm6490: Add qcm6490 idp and rb3 board | From | Mukesh Ojha <> |
| |
On 11/6/2023 5:24 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 13:41, Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@quicinc.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 11/5/2023 6:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 03/11/2023 23:22, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 at 20:49, Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Add qcm6490 devicetree file for QCM6490 IDP and QCM6490 RB3 >>>>> platform. QCM6490 is derived from SC7280 meant for various >>>>> form factor including IoT. >>>>> >>>>> Supported features are, as of now: >>>>> * Debug UART >>>>> * eMMC (only in IDP) >>>>> * USB >>>>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>> + >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-iot-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-iot-common.dtsi >>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>> index 000000000000..01adc97789d0 >>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490-iot-common.dtsi >>>> >>>> I have mixed feelings towards this file. Usually we add such 'common' >>>> files only for the phone platforms where most of the devices are >>>> common. >>>> Do you expect that IDP and RB3 will have a lot of common code other >>>> than these regulator settings? >>> >>> I agree here. What exactly is common in the real hardware between IDP >>> and RB3? Commit msg does not explain it, so I do not see enough >>> justification for common file. Just because some DTS looks similar for >>> different hardware does not mean you should creat common file. >> >> @Dmitry/@Krzysztof, >> >> Thank you for reviewing the RFC, we wanted to continue the >> suggestion/discussion given on [1] , where we discussed that this >> qcm6490 is going to be targeted for IOT segment and will have different >> memory map and it is going to use some of co-processors like adsp/cdsp >> which chrome does not use. >> >> So to your question what is common between RB3 and IDP, mostly they will >> share common memory map(similar to [2]) and regulator settings and both >> will use adsp/cdsp etc., we will be posting the memory map changes as >> well in coming weeks once this RFC is acked. > > Is the memory map going to be the same as the one used on Fairphone5?
No, Fairphone5 looks to be using chrome memory map and i suggested here to move them into sc7280.dtsi
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/d5d53346-ca3b-986a-e104-d87c37115b62@quicinc.com/
> > Are ADSP and CDSP physically present on sc7280?
Yes, they are present but not used.
> > I think that your goal should be to: > - populate missing device in sc7280.dtsi > - maybe add qcm6490.dtsi which defines SoC-level common data (e.g. memory map) > - push the rest to board files.
Agree to all of the point. We started with the same thought at[3] but it got lost in discussion due to its differentiation with mobile counter part(fairphone) which follow chrome memory map and hence we came up with qcm6490-iot-common. Do you think, qcm6490-iot.dtsi should be good ?
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20231003175456.14774-3-quic_kbajaj@quicinc.com/
-Mukesh > > I don't think that putting regulators to the common file is a good > idea. Platforms will further change and limit voltage limits and > modes, so they usually go to the board file. > >> >> >> Thanks, >> Mukesh >> >> [1] >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/d97ebf74-ad03-86d6-b826-b57be209b9e2@quicinc.com/ >> >> [2] >> commit 90c856602e0346ce9ff234062e86a198d71fa723 >> Author: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >> Date: Tue Jan 25 14:44:20 2022 -0800 >> >> arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Factor out Chrome common fragment >> >> This factors out a device tree fragment from some sc7280 device >> trees. It represents the device tree bits that should be included for >> "Chrome" based sc7280 boards. On these boards the bootloader (Coreboot >> + Depthcharge) configures things slightly different than the >> bootloader that Qualcomm provides. The modem firmware on these boards >> also works differently than on other Qulacomm products and thus the >> reserved memory map needs to be adjusted. >> >> NOTES: >> - This is _not_ quite a no-op change. The "herobrine" and "idp" >> fragments here were different and it looks like someone simply >> forgot to update the herobrine version. This updates a few numbers >> to match IDP. This will also cause the `pmk8350_pon` to be disabled >> on idp/crd, which I belive is a correct change. >> - At the moment this assumes LTE skus. Once it's clearer how WiFi SKUs >> will work (how much of the memory map they can reclaim) we may add >> an extra fragment that will rejigger one way or the other. >> >> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> >> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> >> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> >> Link: >> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220125144316.v2.3.Iac012fa8d727be46448d47027a1813ea716423ce@changeid >> >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> > > >
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |