On 29/06/2023 22:53, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
On 29.06.2023 14:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:14, Marijn Suijten
<marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2023-06-29 13:56:25, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
Enable and configure the dispcc node on SM6125 for consumption by MDSS
later on.
Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
index edb03508dba3..a5cc0d43d2d9 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2021, Martin Botka <martin.botka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*/
+#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sm6125.h>
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm6125.h>
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.h>
#include <dt-bindings/dma/qcom-gpi.h>
@@ -1203,6 +1204,30 @@ sram@4690000 {
reg = <0x04690000 0x10000>;
};
+ dispcc: clock-controller@5f00000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sm6125-dispcc";
+ reg = <0x05f00000 0x20000>;
+ clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>,
+ <0>,
+ <0>,
+ <0>,
+ <0>,
+ <0>,
+ <&gcc GCC_DISP_AHB_CLK>,
+ <&gcc GCC_DISP_GPLL0_DIV_CLK_SRC>;
+ clock-names = "bi_tcxo",
+ "dsi0_phy_pll_out_byteclk",
+ "dsi0_phy_pll_out_dsiclk",
+ "dsi1_phy_pll_out_dsiclk",
+ "dp_phy_pll_link_clk",
+ "dp_phy_pll_vco_div_clk",
+ "cfg_ahb_clk",
+ "gcc_disp_gpll0_div_clk_src";
+ power-domains = <&rpmpd SM6125_VDDCX>;
Would it be logical to specify the required-opps too?
Perhaps, but barely any other SoC aside from sm8x50 sets it on dispcc.
What should it be, rpmhpd_opp_low_svs? IIRC we used "svs" for the DSI
PHY despite not having a reference value downstream (it sets a range of
NOM-TURBO_NO_CPR, and RETENTION when it's off).
Then for DSI PHY the required-opps should be rpmpd_opp_nom.
Yes
For the dispcc I think the rpmpd_opp_ret, the lowest possible vote,
should be enough.
I'm not 100% sure but not specifying an opp and turning on the domain
*******probably******* just sticks with the lowest vote
I think so too. But I think it might be better to be explicit rather
than being implicit here. Both of us are describing Linux behaviour
(=set lowest possible value), while DT should describe the hardware.
Konrad
- Marijn
+ #clock-cells = <1>;
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
+ };
+
apps_smmu: iommu@c600000 {
compatible = "qcom,sm6125-smmu-500", "qcom,smmu-500", "arm,mmu-500";
reg = <0x0c600000 0x80000>;
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
