On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 2:28 PM Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:55:20 -0500 > > From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 07:03:43PM GMT, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 08:00:19AM GMT, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 3:11 AM Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 24-07-22 10:42:57, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > > > On 21.07.2024 6:40 PM, Abel Vesa wrote: > > > > > > > On 24-07-19 22:16:38, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > > > > > >> Add support for the aforementioned laptop. That includes: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> - input methods, incl. lid switch (keyboard needs the pdc > > > > > > >> wakeup-parent removal hack..) > > > > > > >> - NVMe, WiFi > > > > > > >> - USB-C ports > > > > > > >> - GPU, display > > > > > > >> - DSPs > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Notably, the USB-A ports on the side are depenedent on the USB > > > > > > >> multiport controller making it upstream. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> At least one of the eDP panels used (non-touchscreen) identifies as > > > > > > >> BOE 0x0b66. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> See below for the hardware description from the OEM. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Link: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/laptops/thinkpad/thinkpadt/lenovo-thinkpad-t14s-gen-6-(14-inch-snapdragon)/len101t0099 > > > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Few comments below. Otherwise, LGTM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> --- > > > > > > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile | 1 + > > > > > > >> .../dts/qcom/x1e78100-lenovo-thinkpad-t14s.dts | 792 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > >> 2 files changed, 793 insertions(+) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile > > > > > > >> index 0e5c810304fb..734a05e04c4a 100644 > > > > > > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile > > > > > > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile > > > > > > >> @@ -261,6 +261,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += sm8650-hdk-display-card.dtb > > > > > > >> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += sm8650-hdk.dtb > > > > > > >> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += sm8650-mtp.dtb > > > > > > >> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += sm8650-qrd.dtb > > > > > > >> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += x1e78100-lenovo-thinkpad-t14s.dtb > > > > > > >> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += x1e80100-asus-vivobook-s15.dtb > > > > > > >> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += x1e80100-crd.dtb > > > > > > >> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM) += x1e80100-lenovo-yoga-slim7x.dtb > > > > > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e78100-lenovo-thinkpad-t14s.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e78100-lenovo-thinkpad-t14s.dts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So what happens for SKUs of this model wil have x1e80100 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we should stick to x1e80100 ? > > > > > > > > > > > > This one only ships with 78100 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but then in upstream we only have 80100. Plus, it is included in > > > > > this file as well. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what's the right thing to do here. But I think it keeps > > > > > things more simple if we keep everything under the x1e80100 umbrella. > > > > > > > > plus sticking to x1e80100 will avoid angering tab completion :-P > > > > > > This is an old argument, with no clear answer. For some devices we > > > choose to use correct SoC name (sda660-inforce-ifc6560). For other we > > > didn't (sdm845-db845c, which really is SDA845). However for most of the > > > devices the goal is to be accurate (think about all the qcs vs qcm > > > stories). So my 2c. would go to x1e78100. > > > > > > > I agree, x1e78100 follows the naming scheme we have agreed upon - for > > better or worse. > > So should the device trees for the Asus Vivobook S15 and the Lenovo > Yoga Slim 7x be renamed then? Since those also (only) ship with > X1E-78-100 variants of the SoC. > > There is supposed to be a variant of the Vivobook with the X1P-64-100 > (I haven't seen it actually for sale yet). Since that one has only 10 > CPU cores, should that one gets its own device tree? That may not be > possible. I have a strong suspicion that all the variants are just > binned versions of the same SoC, where the X1P just has two of the > cores disabled. If Qualcomm, like Apple, attempts to increase the > yield by binning SoCs with broken or badly performing cores as X1P it > might be a lottery which of the 12 cores get disabled. > > And for the vendors that do offer models with different X1E variants, > are there going to multiple device trees, one for each variant? > > I'm asking because on OpenBSD we load the device trees in our > bootloader and map SMBIOS vendor and product names to a device tree > name. So a consistent naming scheme for the device trees is > desirable. multi-sku laptops are going to make this a mess.. We really should just reconsider.. or maybe sidestep the issue and call them all "x1-crd.dts", "x1-lenovo-yoga-7x.dts", etc BR, -R > Thanks, > > Mark > > > Regards, > > Bjorn > > > > > -- > > > With best wishes > > > Dmitry > >
