On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 19:57, Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sonntag, 6. August 2023 12:47:51 CEST Luca Weiss wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > On Montag, 31. Juli 2023 23:45:21 CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 08:20:41PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > > On 15.06.2023 20:17, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > > > From: Craig Tatlor <ctatlor97@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > The qfprom actually has size 0x3000, so adjust the reg.
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that the non-ECC-corrected qfprom can be found at 0xfc4b8000
> > > > > (-0x4000). The current reg points to the ECC-corrected qfprom block
> > > > > which should have equivalent values at all offsets compared to the
> > > > > non-corrected version.
> > > > >
> > > > > [luca@xxxxxxxxx: extract to standalone patch and adjust for review
> > > > > comments]
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: c59ffb519357 ("arm: dts: msm8974: Add thermal zones, tsens and
> > > > > qfprom nodes") Signed-off-by: Craig Tatlor <ctatlor97@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Not sure of the actual size of the region, maybe Bjorn can help..
> > > >
> > > > Downstream 3.10 suggests 0x60F0, 0x20F0 after adjusting for the ECC
> > > > offset
> > >
> > > There is indeed 0x3000 bytes until the next region, but afaict the
> > > corrected ECC values only cover the first 0x800 bytes thereof.
> > >
> > > Can you please let me know if this patch fixes a problem, or just
> > > makes the numbers look better?
> >
> > Initially this patch came from a different direction, to make space to use
> > the PVS bits for cpufreq. Since Konrad said in earlier revisions that I
> > should always use the +0x4000 space for the ECC-corrected variant I've
> > switched to that.
> >
> > If you think it's not useful to have the qfprom size reflect the actual
> > size, we can also drop this patch since I don't think it's actually
> > necessary for anything that I have lying around in some branches.
> >
> > I think I've just sent the current patch to make sure the hardware
> > description (dts) is as accurate as possible, but of course since any info
> > on Qualcomm is very restricted it could also be a bit wrong.
>
> Hi Bjorn,
>
> this patch is still lying in my inbox. Do you think it's correct or incorrect
> - so should we drop it?
There are JTAG and coresight fuses at 0xfc4be024. So, I think, the
regions should be extended to 0x20f0 or 0x2100. BTW: could you please
also fix msm8974 and apq8084 in a similar way?
>
> Regards
> Luca
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Luca
> >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bjorn
> > >
> > > > Konrad
> > > >
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Keep base offset but expand reg from 0x1000 to 0x3000 (Konrad)
> > > > > - Link to v1:
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230130-msm8974-qfprom-v1-1-975aa0e5e083@z3
> > > > > n
> > > > > tu.xyz ---
> > > > >
> > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
> > > > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi index 7ed0d925a4e9..3156fe25967f
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
> > > > > @@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ restart@fc4ab000 {
> > > > >
> > > > > qfprom: qfprom@fc4bc000 {
> > > > >
> > > > > compatible = "qcom,msm8974-qfprom",
> >
> > "qcom,qfprom";
> >
> > > > > - reg = <0xfc4bc000 0x1000>;
> > > > > + reg = <0xfc4bc000 0x3000>;
> > > > >
> > > > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > > #size-cells = <1>;
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > base-commit: 858fd168a95c5b9669aac8db6c14a9aeab446375
> > > > > change-id: 20230130-msm8974-qfprom-619c0e8f26eb
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
>
>
>
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
