On 2024-05-29 14:04, Alexey Charkov wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 2:45 PM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2024-05-29 11:57, Alexey Charkov wrote:
> 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!
You're welcome. :)
> 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?
Believe it or not, the same thoughts crossed my mind. However,
after thinking a bit about it, I concluded that renaming the pinctrl
.dtsi files as well makes the overall naming of the reworked RK3588
.dtsi files more consistent.
It's also rather neat to have the "common" and "fullfat" file pairs
together in the arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip directory listing, when
it's sorted by the file name, which is the default in most (if not
all) environments.
>> .../{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 :)
Yeah, I resorted to "fullfat" as some kind of a funny option. :)
That's for the "beefy" SoC variants, so it kind of fits well. :)
> 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?
The trouble with including "devices" into the filenames is, well,
the fact that those files isn't about any devices, but about the
SoC variants. Thus, "devices" simply wouldn't fit there.
My thinking was along the lines of "here is the file that contains all
DT nodes for built-in _devices_ (as in on-chip IP blocks) on RK3588 -
thus it's called rk3588-devices.dtsi", and "here's the file that
contains operating parameters that distinguish RK3588 and RK3588s from
RK3588j - it's called rk3588s-opp.dtsi"
Hmm... I see, but a device is usually though of as some standalone
computer, at least in this context. Surely, an SoC is also some kind
of a device, for example, but I'm pretty sure we'll very rarely call
an SoC a device. It's always good to adhere to the usual meaning of
the words in a particular lingo.
When it comes to rk3588s-opp.dtsi, it would be more of a file that
completes the rk3588s.dtsi by adding the OPPs, but we can in fact
add the OPPs directly into rk3588s.dtsi, because in the new layout
rk3588s.dtsi isn't a parent to any other file.
Moreover, in the envisioned scheme there should be no separate
OPP .dtsi files; the OPP data should go directly into the new
rk3588.dtsi, rk3588s.dtsi and rk3588j.dtsi files, where it actually
belongs. That's why those .dtsi files exist and are mostly empty,
at least the way I see it. I'll get back to this below.
> 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"
Such a layout, in general, has also crossed my mind, but my conclusion
was that having the per-SoC-variant OPP data specified directly in the
reworked rk3588.dtsi, rk3588s.dtsi and rk3588j.dtsi files is a better
option in the long term, even if we end up that way with rk3588.dtsi
and
rk3588s.dtsi repeating most (if not all) of the same OPP data.
From all the info we have available so far, RK3588 and RK3588s share
identical OPPs, so having one file with OPPs that both variants refer
to should be more maintainable (and fewer lines of DT code).
Hmm. Perhaps we can have rk3588-opp.dtsi as a separate file with the
OPPs shared between the RK3588 and the RK3588S, which would be included
from rk3588.dtsi and rk3588s.dtsi.
Though, the OPPs for the RK3588J should go directly into rk3588j.dtsi;
if we ever split the OPPs for the RK3588 and the RK3588S, the new OPPs
should also go directly into rk3588.dtsi and rk3588s.dtsi.
All in all, it appears that RK3588 and RK3588j have an identical set
of built-in devices, but different OPPs due to RK3588j being spec'd
for industrial use which apparently has different requirements. At the
same time, RK3588s uses an identical set of OPPs as RK3588 but a
reduced set of built-in devices. The combination of includes I
proposed above makes this explicit.
Again, calling IP blocks devices is, AFAIK, very uncommon.
As for RK3588m, it seems to include all the same devices as RK3588 and
RK3588j, but a slightly modified set of OPPs compared to RK3588j. We
don't have any boards using that variant in the mainline tree right
now, but it would be easy, when the need arises, to add something
along the lines of:
rk3588m.dtsi:
#include "rk3588-devices.dtsi"
#include "rk3588m-opp.dtsi"
rk3588m-opp.dtsi:
#include "rk3588j-opp.dtsi"
&cluster0_opp_table {
/delete-node/ opp-1296000000;
};
I don't think that deleting nodes that way is a good option. It's
rather error-prone and hard to track, so it would be better to have
the OPPs for RK3588M specified directly (and fully) in the future
rk3588m.dtsi file, just like in rk3588j.dtsi.
That way we'll have no roadblocks if, at some point, we end up with
having
different OPPs defined for the RK3588 and the RK3588S variants. Or
maybe
even for the RK3582, which we don't know much about yet.
Guess we'll deal with that one once we stumble upon an actual RK3582
board out in the wild and heading to the mainline kernel tree :)
Of course, that was just an example for the future use.
