Re: [PATCH 2/6] arm64: dts: renesas: r8a774a1: Enable GPU

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:04 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:31 AM Matt Coster <Matt.Coster@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > Thanks for these patches! I'll just reply to this one patch, but my
> > comments apply to them all.
> >
> > On 27/02/2024 03:45, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > The GPU on the RZ/G2M is a Rogue GX6250 which uses firmware
> > > rogue_4.45.2.58_v1.fw available from Imagination.
> > >
> > > When enumerated, it appears as:
> > >   powervr fd000000.gpu: [drm] loaded firmware powervr/rogue_4.45.2.58_v1.fw
> > >   powervr fd000000.gpu: [drm] FW version v1.0 (build 6513336 OS)
> >
> > These messages are printed after verifying the firmware blob’s headers,
> > *before* attempting to upload it to the device. Just because they appear
> > in dmesg does *not* imply the device is functional beyond the handful of
> > register reads in pvr_load_gpu_id().
> >
> > Since Mesa does not yet have support for this GPU, there’s not a lot
> > that can be done to actually test these bindings.
>
> OK.
>
> > When we added upstream support for the first GPU (the AXE core in TI’s
> > AM62), we opted to wait until userspace was sufficiently progressed to
> > the point it could be used for testing. This thought process still
> > applies when adding new GPUs.
> >
> > Our main concern is that adding bindings for GPUs implies a level of
> > support that cannot be tested. That in turn may make it challenging to
> > justify UAPI changes if/when they’re needed to actually make these GPUs
> > functional.
>
> I guess that applies to "[PATCH 00/11] Device tree support for
> Imagination Series5 GPU", too, which has been in linux-next for about
> a month?
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240109171950.31010-1-afd@xxxxxx/
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a774a1.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a774a1.dtsi
> > > index a8a44fe5e83b..8923d9624b39 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a774a1.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a774a1.dtsi
> > > @@ -2352,6 +2352,16 @@ gic: interrupt-controller@f1010000 {
> > >                       resets = <&cpg 408>;
> > >               };
> > >
> > > +             gpu: gpu@fd000000 {
> > > +                     compatible = "renesas,r8a774a1-gpu", "img,img-axe";
> >
> > The GX6250 is *not* an AXE core - it shouldn’t be listed as compatible
> > with one. For prior art, see [1] where we added support for the MT8173
> > found in Elm Chromebooks R13 (also a Series6XT GPU).
>
> IC. And the bindings in [2].
>
> >
> > > +                     reg = <0 0xfd000000 0 0x20000>;
> > > +                     clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 112>;
> > > +                     clock-names = "core";
> >
> > Series6XT cores have three clocks (see [1] again). I don’t have a
> > Renesas TRM to hand – do you know if their docs go into detail on the
> > GPU integration?
>
> Not really. The diagram in the Hardware User's Manual just shows the
> following clock inputs:
>   - Clock (ZGϕ) from CPG,
>   - Clock (S3D1ϕ) from CPG,
>   - MSTP (ST112) from CPG.
>
> ZG is the main (programmable) 3DGE clock, running at up to 600 MHz.
> S3D1 is the fixed 266 MHz AXI bus clock.
> MSTP112 is the gateable module clock (part of the SYSC/CPG clock
> domain), and its parent is ZG.
>
> According to the sources:
>   - "core" is the primary clock used by the entire GPU core, so we use
>     MSTP112 for that.
>   - "sys" is the optional system bus clock, so that could be S3D1,
>   - "mem" is the optional memory clock, no idea what that would map to.
>
> But IMHO the two optional clocks do not matter at all (the driver
> doesn't care about their rates, and just enables them together with
> the core clock), and S3D1 is always-on, so I'd just limit clocks to
> a single item.

Matt,

When the time is right, and the driver is ready for Series 6XT-based
systems, would Geert's rationale for supporting one clock be
acceptable if I added his clock description to the commit message?

>
> Just wondering: is the availability of 1 clock specific to AXE, or to
> the AXE integration on AM62x?
>
> > +                     interrupts = <GIC_SPI 119 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > +                     power-domains = <&sysc R8A774A1_PD_3DG_B>;
> > +                     resets = <&cpg 112>;
> > +             };
>
> > [1]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/imagination/linux/-/blob/b3506b8bc45ed6d4005eb32a994df0e33d6613f1/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8173.dtsi#L993-1006
>
> [2] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/imagination/linux/-/blob/b3506b8bc45ed6d4005eb32a994df0e33d6613f1/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr.yaml
>
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds





[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux