Hi,
On 3/5/2021 11:12 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On 3/4/2021 5:34 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Rajendra Nayak (2021-03-03 04:17:49)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
index 4a56d9c..21c2399 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
@@ -30,6 +31,18 @@
};
};
+ reserved_memory: reserved-memory {
Do we plan to use this label at any point? I'd prefer we remove this
until it becomes useful.
sure, i'll drop it
+ #address-cells = <2>;
+ #size-cells = <2>;
+ ranges;
+
+ aop_cmd_db_mem: memory@80860000 {
+ reg = <0x0 0x80860000 0x0 0x20000>;
+ compatible = "qcom,cmd-db";
+ no-map;
+ };
+ };
+
cpus {
#address-cells = <2>;
#size-cells = <0>;
@@ -203,6 +229,7 @@
interrupt-controller;
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 175>;
+ wakeup-parent = <&pdc>;
qup_uart5_default: qup-uart5-default {
pins = "gpio46", "gpio47";
@@ -287,6 +314,23 @@
status = "disabled";
};
};
+
+ apps_rsc: rsc@18200000 {
Any better name than 'rsc'? Maybe 'power-controller'?
hmm, Maulik, any thoughts? This would perhaps need the bindings docs
to be updated as well (and maybe the existing platform DTs using rsc too)
I think we should be good with rsc (resource-state-coordinator). RSC
itself don't do any resource power management.
Thanks,
Maulik
+ compatible = "qcom,rpmh-rsc";
+ reg = <0 0x18200000 0 0x10000>,
+ <0 0x18210000 0 0x10000>,
+ <0 0x18220000 0 0x10000>;
+ reg-names = "drv-0", "drv-1", "drv-2";
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 3 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
+ <GIC_SPI 4 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
+ <GIC_SPI 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ qcom,tcs-offset = <0xd00>;
+ qcom,drv-id = <2>;
+ qcom,tcs-config = <ACTIVE_TCS 2>,
+ <SLEEP_TCS 3>,
+ <WAKE_TCS 3>,
+ <CONTROL_TCS 1>;
+ };
};
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
