On 10/11/2023 3:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 10/11/23 07:40, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
On 10/7/2023 5:02 AM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 3.10.2023 19:54, Komal Bajaj wrote:
Add qcm6490 devicetree file for QCM6490 SoC and QCM6490 IDP
platform. QCM6490 is derived from SC7280 meant for various
form factor including IoT.
Supported features are, as of now:
* Debug UART
* eMMC
* USB
Signed-off-by: Komal Bajaj <quic_kbajaj@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490.dtsi
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..b93270cae9ae
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm6490.dtsi
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
+/*
+ * Copyright (c) 2023 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights
reserved.
+ */
+
+#include "sc7280.dtsi"
+
+/*
+ * Delete unused sc7280 memory nodes and define the memory regions
+ * required by qcm6490
+ */
+/delete-node/ &rmtfs_mem;
+/delete-node/ &wlan_ce_mem;
+
+/{
+ reserved-memory {
+ cdsp_secure_heap_mem: cdsp-secure-heap@81800000 {
+ reg = <0x0 0x81800000 0x0 0x1e00000>;
+ no-map;
+ };
+
+ camera_mem: camera@84300000 {
Uhh.. this is totally not the same memory map that I have on a
random msm-5.4 source+devicetree drop (which does in turn align
with the one on QCM6490 Fairphone 5, as it should because it's
a rebadged reference device for the most part)..
Did you guys *really* redo it between software releases?
QCM6490 fairphone is special case where same SOC is used for mobile
product and it uses sc7280 memory map.
Current patch adds support for the same SOC marketed for IOT segment
[1] and very active in the development and soon going to freeze its
memory map, so we are deriving memory map from sc7280 and creating
a new memory map for all IOT product with qcm6490.dtsi .
Stop reinventing the wheel. I'm not going to accept patches that are
supposed to define ABI for products that are still in development.
Not unless Qualcomm changes their attitude towards unilaterally breaking
things for no good reason.
[1]
https://www.qualcomm.com/products/internet-of-things/industrial/building-enterprise/qcm6490
This SoC family has been on the market for quite some time,
breaking software expectations like that is not cool, especially
on a product with a promised lifespan of 10 years or whatever!
I agree, but we are not changing anything for product which are there
in the market instead defining a new memory map what is going to come
with qcm6490.dtsi for IOT.
Why would the OS care about the market segment you're targeting?
Why would the firmware you're building care about the market segment
you're targeting? The LE vs LA vs LU vs WP vs whatever split is so
unnecessary and arbitrary on the firmware/kernel side..
Forgive me, if i ask some very basic question, just trying to put my
thought,
I agree, OS should not worry about the market segment, but through the
DT firmware, we can better optimize memory to either give more memory to
user or give more memory to certain DSP's to enable certain feature
through the firmware like some logging infra etc., and due to which
certain gaps can get created where certain memory region need to be
move up or down due to increase in the carve-out.
Let's say X Soc released with some memory map, any derivative SoC Y
should follow X's memory map if it is including X dtsi ? and the reason
why Y want to include X is solely the work done for X and most of
peripheral memory addresses is matching.
But 'Y' could be different product, right? and it could have different
firmware and it is not like 'X' firmware will run on 'Y' ?
Now a days, most of our firmware are relocatable.
-Mukesh
The firmware should either be fully relocatable (so that dynamic memory
reservation can be used), unified so that there's no changes or better
yet stored in separate memory so that q6 cores don't steal the RAM that
the user paid for and you can do whatever ugly magic you please in there.
This arbitrary segmentation makes it impossible to have a common base,
or to explain what device should go where to a newcomer.
Sorry, the other qcm6490 soc with
fairphone(for mobile) can get confuse with qcm6490.dtsi but that
is special case and i hope, that should be fine but, let me know if
there is concern.
With that, this really seems more of a change that would belong
in the IDP dts than the 6490-common one..
We wanted to keep it in qcm6490.dtsi as there are some more product
going to share this in future.
And then what if you decide that you need to re-release SC7280 for
automotive and make changes again? Do we define qcm6490au.dtsi which
will redefine everything again-again?
Konrad
