Am 21. August 2024 23:28:55 MESZ schrieb Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx>: >Cristian, Heiko, > >On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 11:38:01PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >> On 8/21/24 6:07 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 11:12:45PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >> >> On 8/20/24 7:14 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 03:37:44PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >> >>>> On 8/19/24 7:53 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: >> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2024 at 01:29:30AM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >> >>>>>> + rockchip,grf: >> >>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle >> >>>>>> + description: >> >>>>>> + Most HDMI QP related data is accessed through SYS GRF regs. >> >>>>>> + >> >>>>>> + rockchip,vo1-grf: >> >>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle >> >>>>>> + description: >> >>>>>> + Additional HDMI QP related data is accessed through VO1 GRF regs. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Why are these required? What prevents you looking up the syscons by >> >>>>> compatible? >> >>>> >> >>>> That is for getting the proper instance: >> >>> >> >>> Ah, that makes sense. I am, however, curious why these have the same >> >>> compatible when they have different sized regions allocated to them. >> >> >> >> Good question, didn't notice. I've just checked the TRM and, in both >> >> cases, the maximum register offset is within the 0x100 range. Presumably >> >> this is nothing but an inconsistency, as the syscons have been added in >> >> separate commits. >> > >> > Is that TRM publicly available? I do find it curious that devices sound >> > like they have different contents have the same compatible. In my view, >> > that is incorrect and they should have unique compatibles if the >> > contents (and therefore the programming model) differs. >> >> Don't know if there's an official location to get it from, but a quick >> search on internet shows a few repos providing them, e.g. [1]. >> >> Comparing "6.14 VO0_GRF Register Description" at pg. 777 with "6.15 VO1_GRF >> Register Description" at pg. 786 (from Part1) reveals the layout is mostly >> similar, with a few variations though. > >Page references and everything, thank you very much. I don't think those >two GRFs should have the same compatibles, they're, as you say, similar >but not identical. Seems like a bug to me! > >Heiko, what do you think? Yes, while the register names sound similar, looking at the bit definitions this evening revealed that they handle vastly different settings. So I guess we should fix the compatibles. They are all about graphics stuff and HDMI actually is the first output, so right now WE can at least still claim the no-users joker ;-) Heiko > >> [1] https://github.com/FanX-Tek/rk3588-TRM-and-Datasheet >> >> >> >> >>>> vo0_grf: syscon@fd5a6000 { >> >>>> compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-vo-grf", "syscon"; >> >>>> reg = <0x0 0xfd5a6000 0x0 0x2000>; >> >>>> clocks = <&cru PCLK_VO0GRF>; >> >>>> }; >> >>>> >> >>>> vo1_grf: syscon@fd5a8000 { >> >>>> compatible = "rockchip,rk3588-vo-grf", "syscon"; >> >>>> reg = <0x0 0xfd5a8000 0x0 0x100>; >> >>>> clocks = <&cru PCLK_VO1GRF>; >> >>>> }; >> > -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
