Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2024 13:42:33 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm/msm/adreno: Implement SMEM-based speed bin | From | Konrad Dybcio <> |
| |
On 4/6/24 05:23, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:32AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >> On recent (SM8550+) Snapdragon platforms, the GPU speed bin data is >> abstracted through SMEM, instead of being directly available in a fuse. >> >> Add support for SMEM-based speed binning, which includes getting >> "feature code" and "product code" from said source and parsing them >> to form something that lets us match OPPs against. >> >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> >> ---
[...]
>> - return nvmem_cell_read_variable_le_u32(dev, "speed_bin", speedbin); >> + u32 fcode, pcode; >> + int ret; >> + >> + /* Try reading the speedbin via a nvmem cell first */ >> + ret = nvmem_cell_read_variable_le_u32(dev, "speed_bin", speedbin); >> + if (!ret && ret != -EINVAL) > > This is always false.
Right, a better condition would be (!ret || ret != EINVAL)..
> >> + return ret; >> + >> + ret = qcom_smem_get_feature_code(&fcode); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Couldn't get feature code from SMEM!\n"); >> + return ret; > > This brings in QCOM_SMEM dependency (which is not mentioned in the > Kconfig). Please keep iMX5 hardware in mind, so the dependency should be > optional. Respective functions should be stubbed in the header.
OK, I had this in mind early on, but forgot to actually impl it.
> >> + } >> + >> + ret = qcom_smem_get_product_code(&pcode); >> + if (ret) { >> + dev_err(dev, "Couldn't get product code from SMEM!\n"); >> + return ret; >> + } >> + >> + /* Don't consider fcode for external feature codes */ >> + if (fcode <= SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE) >> + fcode = SOCINFO_FC_UNKNOWN; >> + >> + *speedbin = FIELD_PREP(ADRENO_SKU_ID_PCODE, pcode) | >> + FIELD_PREP(ADRENO_SKU_ID_FCODE, fcode); > > What about just asking the qcom_smem for the 'gpu_bin' and hiding gory > details there? It almost feels that handling raw PCODE / FCODE here is > too low-level and a subject to change depending on the socinfo format.
No, the FCODE & PCODE can be interpreted differently across consumers.
> >> + >> + return ret; >> } >> >> int adreno_gpu_init(struct drm_device *drm, struct platform_device *pdev, >> @@ -1098,9 +1129,9 @@ int adreno_gpu_init(struct drm_device *drm, struct platform_device *pdev, >> devm_pm_opp_set_clkname(dev, "core"); >> } >> >> - if (adreno_read_speedbin(dev, &speedbin) || !speedbin) >> + if (adreno_read_speedbin(adreno_gpu, dev, &speedbin) || !speedbin) >> speedbin = 0xffff; >> - adreno_gpu->speedbin = (uint16_t) (0xffff & speedbin); > > the &= 0xffff should probably go to the adreno_read_speedbin / nvmem > case. WDYT?
Ok, I can keep it, though realistically if this ever does anything useful, it likely means the dt is wrong
Konrad
| |