On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:04:59AM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 11:20:58PM -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
> > + Stanimir
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 09:49:01PM -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 04:24:38PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:12:41AM -0600, Andy Gross wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:28:35PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > > > > > Add an interface to trigger the remote processor to reinitialize the GPU
> > > > > > zap shader on power-up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > +int __qcom_scm_gpu_zap_resume(struct device *dev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + struct qcom_scm_desc desc = {0};
> > > > > > + struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + desc.args[0] = 0;
> > > >
> > > > This is an opcode to force the state to resume.
> > > >
> > > > QCOM_SCM_BOOT_SET_STATE_RESUME perhaps? Or something similar but shorter.
> > > >
> > > > > > + desc.args[1] = 13;
> > > >
> > > > This is the same as the SCM id of the GPU but I think that is a coincidence.
> > > > We've always used it to identify the GPU in this call.
> > > >
> > > > QCOM_SCM_BOOT_SET_STATE_GPU would be fine here - or something similar.
> > > >
> > > > > Can I get a define here for these two? Or maybe a comment on what these values
> > > > > are?
> > > > >
> > > > > > + desc.arginfo = QCOM_SCM_ARGS(2);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + ret = qcom_scm_call(dev, QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, 0x0A, &desc, &res);
> > > > >
> > > > > Same with the 0xA. We usually throw a #define in for the command definitions.
> > > >
> > > > 0x0A sets the state of the device - for us it is always 0 (resume) and always
> > > > the GPU.
> > > >
> > > > #define QCOM_SCM_BOOT_SET_STATE 0x0A
> > > >
> > > > > Otherwise this all looks fine. If you can get back to me with either the values
> > > > > or a new patch I can include this in the next pull.
> > > >
> > > > I'll make the changes and start the song and dance, but you'll no doubt be
> > > > faster than I.
> > >
> > > I can just fix up the patch with the above. Thanks for the additional details.
> >
> > The plot thickens. So I have a patch from Stanimir concerning another SCM call
> > that is using the same command and number of arguments. And it also concerns
> > setting state. I think that we need to roll a common API for setting the state
> > and then both of you can call it. That way we can kill two birds with one
> > stone.
>
> I was worried about this, but not this quickly - glad to see that the other
> drivers are coming along too.
>
> If you look carefully, you'll note that the values are inverted - the video
> state uses 0 to suspend and 1 to resume, and GPU uses 0 to resume and no
> suspend. I asked why and got a bunch of shrugging back. Its not a big deal
> because your API accounts for this but expect GPU to have a RESUME #define
> that is a different value.
>
> > Something along the lines of a function prototype:
> > int qcom_scm_set_remote_state(u32 state, u32 id)
> > {
> > return __qcom_scm_set_remote_state(__scm->dev, state, id);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(qcom_scm_set_remote_state);
> >
> > where state is the state you want set, and id is the identifier of the remote
> > proc.
> >
> > Does this make sense for both of your use cases?
>
> Yep - this is fine.
If you guys can ack/sob that patch I'd appreciate it.
As for the #defines, you guys can define whatever you like in your drivers.
This API just pushes all that into your client drivers.
Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
