On 4/10/24 21:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 01:42:33PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
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@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
[...]
+ }
+
+ 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.
That's why I wrote about asking for 'gpu_bin'.
I'd rather keep the magic GPU LUTs inside the adreno driver, especially
since not all Snapdragons feature Adreno, but all Adrenos are on
Snapdragons (modulo a2xx but I refuse to make design decisions treating
these equally to e.g. a6xx)
+
+ 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
Yes, but if DT is wrong, we should probably fail in a sensible way. I
just wanted to point out that previously we had this &0xffff, while your
patch silently removes it.
Right, but I don't believe it actually matters.. If that AND ever did
anything, this was a silent failure with garbage data passed in anyway.
If you really insist, I can remove it separately.
Konrad
