On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:12:21PM -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> Introduce initial support for the Qualcomm SC8280XP platform, aka 8cx
> Gen 3. This initial contribution supports SMP, CPUfreq, CPU cluster
> idling, GCC, TLMM, SMMU, RPMh regulators, power-domains and clocks,
> interconnects, some QUPs, UFS, remoteprocs, USB, watchdog, LLCC and
> tsens.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 2145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 2145 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..ac13965a181e
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi
[...]
> + reserved-memory {
> + #address-cells = <2>;
> + #size-cells = <2>;
> + ranges;
> +
> + memory@80000000 {
> + reg = <0 0x80000000 0 0x860000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + cmd_db: memory@80860000 {
> + compatible = "qcom,cmd-db";
> + reg = <0 0x80860000 0 0x20000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + memory@80880000 {
> + reg = <0 0x80880000 0 0x80000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + smem_mem: smem@80900000 {
> + compatible = "qcom,smem";
> + reg = <0 0x80900000 0 0x200000>;
> + no-map;
> + hwlocks = <&tcsr_mutex 3>;
> + };
> +
> + memory@80b00000 {
> + reg = <0 0x80b00000 0 0x100000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + memory@83b00000 {
> + reg = <0 0x83b00000 0 0x1700000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + memory@85b00000 {
> + reg = <0 0x85b00000 0 0xc00000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + pil_adsp_mem: memory@86c00000 {
> + reg = <0 0x86c00000 0 0x2000000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + pil_nsp0_mem: memory@8a100000 {
> + reg = <0 0x8a100000 0 0x1e00000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + pil_nsp1_mem: memory@8c600000 {
> + reg = <0 0x8c600000 0 0x1e00000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
> +
> + memory@aeb00000 {
> + reg = <0 0xaeb00000 0 0x16600000>;
> + no-map;
> + };
Doesn't memory@ still cause the dtbs_check warnings? Similar to
> soc/qcom/qcom,smem.example.dt.yaml: memory@fa00000: 'device_type' is a required property
> From schema: dtschema/schemas/memory.yaml
as in [1]. If I understood it correctly there Rob said that memory@
shouldn't be used for reserved-memory. Perhaps even reserved-memory@
might be better then.
The device tree specification on the other hand suggests using the
purpose of the reserved memory, like we did on older SoCs:
> 3.5.2 /reserved-memory/ child nodes
> Following the generic-names recommended practice, node names should
> reflect the purpose of the node (ie. “framebuffer” or “dma-pool”).
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/CAL_Jsq+66j8Y5y+PQ+mezkaxN1pfHFKz524YUF4Lz_OU5E-mZQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> + timer@17c20000 {
> + compatible = "arm,armv7-timer-mem";
> + #address-cells = <2>;
> + #size-cells = <2>;
> + ranges;
> + reg = <0x0 0x17c20000 0x0 0x1000>;
> + clock-frequency = <19200000>;
[...]
> + };
> + timer {
> + compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> + interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> + <GIC_PPI 14 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> + <GIC_PPI 11 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> + <GIC_PPI 10 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>;
> + clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> + };
Is the "clock-frequency" really needed for these two?
The binding docs are pretty clear that this should be configured by the
firmware instead:
> Should be present only where necessary to work around broken firmware
> which does not configure CNTFRQ on all CPUs to a uniform correct
> value. Use of this property is strongly discouraged; fix your firmware
> unless absolutely impossible.
I hope Qualcomm's firmware is actually improving on newer platforms
and not making big steps backwards. :-)
Thanks,
Stephan
