On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 07:13:51AM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: > On 4/16/24 02:30, Stefan Wahren wrote: > > Hi Maíra, > > > > Am 16.04.24 um 03:02 schrieb Maíra Canal: > > > On 4/15/24 13:54, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > > On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 13:00:39 -0300 > > > > Maíra Canal <mcanal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > RPi 0-3 is packed with a GPU that provides 3D rendering capabilities to > > > > > the RPi. Currently, the downstream kernel uses an overlay to enable the > > > > > GPU and use GPU hardware acceleration. When deploying a mainline kernel > > > > > to the RPi 0-3, we end up without any GPU hardware acceleration > > > > > (essentially, we can't use the OpenGL driver). > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, enable the V3D core for the RPi 0-3 in the mainline kernel. > > > > > > > > So I think Krzysztof's initial comment still stands: What does that > > > > patch > > > > actually change? If I build those DTBs as of now, none of them has a > > > > status property in the v3d node. Which means it's enabled: > > > > https://github.com/devicetree-org/devicetree-specification/blob/main/source/chapter2-devicetree-basics.rst#status > > > > > > > > So adding an explicit 'status = "okay";' doesn't make a difference. > > > > > > > > What do I miss here? > > > > > > As mentioned by Stefan in the last version, in Raspberry Pi OS, there is > > > a systemd script which is trying to check for the V3D driver (/usr/lib > > > /systemd/scripts/gldriver_test.sh). Within the first check, "raspi- > > > config nonint is_kms" is called, which always seems to fail. What > > > "raspi-config" does is check if > > > /proc/device-tree/soc/v3d@7ec00000/status is equal to "okay". As > > > /proc/device-tree/soc/v3d@7ec00000/status doesn't exists, it returns > > > false. > > yes, but i also mention that the V3D driver starts without this patch. > > The commit message of this patch suggests this is a DT issue, which is not. > > > > I hadn't the time to update my SD card to Bookworm yet. Does the issue > > still exists with this version? > > I'm using a 32-bit kernel and the recommended OS for 32-bit is Bullseye. > But I checked the Bookworm code and indeed, Bookworm doesn't check > the device tree [1]. > > I'm thinking about sending a patch to the Bullseye branch to fix this > issue. I think you should, sounds like they're making invalid assumptions about the status property.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
