On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:52 PM Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:23 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:23:34PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> >
> > > Some GPUs, namely, the bifrost/g72 part on MT8183, have a second
> > > regulator for their SRAM, let's add support for that.
> >
> > > + pfdev->regulator_sram = devm_regulator_get_optional(pfdev->dev, "sram");
> > > + if (IS_ERR(pfdev->regulator_sram)) {
> >
> > This supply is required for the devices that need it so I'd therefore
> > expect the driver to request the supply non-optionally based on the
> > compatible string rather than just hoping that a missing regulator isn't
> > important.
>
> That'd be a bit awkward to match, though... Currently all bifrost
> share the same compatible "arm,mali-bifrost", and it'd seem
> weird/wrong to match "mediatek,mt8183-mali" in this driver? I have no
> idea if any other Mali implementation will require a second regulator,
> but with the MT8183 we do need it, see below.
The current number of supported bifrost platforms is 0. It's only a
matter of time until SoC specific compatibles need to be used in the
driver. This is why we require them.
It could very well be that all bifrost implementations need 2
supplies. On chip RAMs are very frequently a separate thing which are
synthesized differently from logic. At least within a specific IP
model, I somewhat doubt there's a variable number of supplies. It
could be possible to connect both to the same supply, but the correct
way to handle that is both -supply properties point to the same
regulator.
Rob
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
