Hi Dragan, On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 6:14 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Rename and modify the RK3588 dtsi files a bit, to make preparations for > the ability to specify different CPU and GPU OPPs for each of the supported > RK3588 SoC variants, including the RK3588J. > > As already discussed, [1][2][3] some of the different RK3588 SoC variants > require different OPPs, and it makes more sense to have the OPPs already > defined when a board dts includes one of the SoC dtsi files (rk3588.dtsi, > rk3588j.dtsi or rk3588s.dtsi), rather than requiring the board dts file to > also include a separate rk3588*-opp.dtsi file. The choice of the SoC variant > is already made by the inclusion of the SoC dtsi file, and it doesn't make > much sense to, effectively, allow the board dts file to include and use an > incompatible set of OPPs for the already selected SoC variant. Indeed, including just one .dtsi for the correct SoC variant and not having to bother about what other bits and pieces are required to use the full SoC functionality sounds great! Thanks for putting this together so promptly! Some considerations below. > No intended functional changes are introduced. (Still to be additionally > verified if the patch moves forward from the RFC state.) > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/646a33e0-5c1b-471c-8183-2c0df40ea51a@xxxxxxxxx/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/CABjd4Yxi=+3gkNnH3BysUzzYsji-=-yROtzEc8jM_g0roKB0-w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/035a274be262528012173d463e25b55f@xxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Signed-off-by: Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > ...inctrl.dtsi => rk3588-common-pinctrl.dtsi} | 0 Renaming the pinctrl includes seems superfluous - maybe keep them as they were to minimize churn? > .../{rk3588s.dtsi => rk3588-common.dtsi} | 2 +- > ...nctrl.dtsi => rk3588-fullfat-pinctrl.dtsi} | 0 > .../{rk3588.dtsi => rk3588-fullfat.dtsi} | 4 +- To me, "fullfat" doesn't look super descriptive, albeit fun :) How about we rename the existing rk3588.dtsi and rk3588s.dtsi to something like rk3588-devices.dtsi and rk3588s-devices.dtsi (preserving the inheritance between them), and then I add rk3588s-opp.dtsi and rk3588j-opp.dtsi in a follow-up patch? Then we keep "thin" versions of rk3588.dtsi, rk3588s.dtsi and rk3588j.dtsi for board files to include. The mix-and-match of different on-chip devices and different OPPs then gets transparently represented within those "thin" .dtsi, something like this: rk3588.dtsi: #include "rk3588-devices.dtsi" #include "rk3588s-opp.dtsi" rk3588s.dtsi: #include "rk3588s-devices.dtsi" #include "rk3588s-opp.dtsi" rk3588j.dtsi: #include "rk3588-devices.dtsi" #include "rk3588j-opp.dtsi" > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588.dtsi | 414 +-- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588j.dtsi | 6 +- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi | 2671 +---------------- Rename detection didn't do a particularly great job here - wonder if we can do anything about it to minimize the patch size and ensure that the change history is preserved for git blame... Best regards, Alexey
