On 03/06/2017 06:27 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 03/04/2017 01:38 PM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> Am 03.03.2017 um 20:29 schrieb Kevin Hilman: >>>> Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
