On 8.01.2025 11:42 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> Adreno X1-85 has an additional bit which is at a non-contiguous
> location in qfprom. Add support for this new "hi" bit along with
> the speedbin mappings.
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c | 5 +++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> index 0c560e84ad5a53bb4e8a49ba4e153ce9cf33f7ae..e2261f50aabc6a2f931d810f3637dfdba5695f43 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> @@ -1412,6 +1412,11 @@ static const struct adreno_info a7xx_gpus[] = {
> .gmu_cgc_mode = 0x00020202,
> },
> .address_space_size = SZ_256G,
> + .speedbins = ADRENO_SPEEDBINS(
> + { 0, 0 },
> + { 263, 1 },
> + { 315, 0 },
> + ),
> .preempt_record_size = 4192 * SZ_1K,
> }, {
> .chip_ids = ADRENO_CHIP_IDS(0x43051401), /* "C520v2" */
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c
> index 75f5367e73caace4648491b041f80b7c4d26bf89..7b31379eff444cf3f8ed0dcfd23c14920c13ee9d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.c
> @@ -1078,7 +1078,20 @@ void adreno_gpu_ocmem_cleanup(struct adreno_ocmem *adreno_ocmem)
>
> int adreno_read_speedbin(struct device *dev, u32 *speedbin)
> {
> - return nvmem_cell_read_variable_le_u32(dev, "speed_bin", speedbin);
> + u32 hi_bits = 0;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = nvmem_cell_read_variable_le_u32(dev, "speed_bin", speedbin);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Some chipsets have MSB bits (BIT(8) and above) at a non-contiguous location */
> + ret = nvmem_cell_read_variable_le_u32(dev, "speed_bin_hi", &hi_bits);
> + if (ret != -ENOENT)
> + return ret;
> +
> + *speedbin |= (hi_bits << 8);
Now that we're overwriting speedbin, we should probably have some checks in
order to make sure somebody passing a too-wide cell to one of these won't
result in cripplingly-untraceable value corruption
I guess we could just introduce nvmem_cell_read_variable_le_u8() and call it
a day?
Konrad
