On 29/07/2021 01:25, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
Add interconnect provider nodes to allow for NoC bus scaling.
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 59 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi
index e2cbe210048e..c46b7327afbe 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm630.dtsi
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
*/
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sdm660.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,mmcc-sdm660.h>
#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>
#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
@@ -516,11 +517,38 @@ rng: rng@793000 {
clock-names = "core";
};
+ bimc: interconnect@1008000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm660-bimc";
+ reg = <0x01008000 0x78000>;
+ #interconnect-cells = <1>;
+ clock-names = "bus", "bus_a";
+ clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_BIMC_CLK>,
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_BIMC_A_CLK>;
+ };
+
restart@10ac000 {
compatible = "qcom,pshold";
reg = <0x010ac000 0x4>;
};
+ cnoc: interconnect@1500000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm660-cnoc";
+ reg = <0x01500000 0x10000>;
+ #interconnect-cells = <1>;
+ clock-names = "bus", "bus_a";
+ clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_CNOC_CLK>,
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_CNOC_A_CLK>;
+ };
+
+ snoc: interconnect@1626000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm660-snoc";
+ reg = <0x01626000 0x7090>;
+ #interconnect-cells = <1>;
+ clock-names = "bus", "bus_a";
+ clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_SNOC_CLK>,
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_SNOC_A_CLK>;
+ };
Interesting, this disagrees with the downstream dts. It looks like you
are including offset to QoS registers into start address. Although we do
not use other registers from the NoC, I think it would be better to use
correct device address and adjust register offset in the interconnect
driver.
+
anoc2_smmu: iommu@16c0000 {
compatible = "qcom,sdm630-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2";
reg = <0x016c0000 0x40000>;
@@ -564,6 +592,25 @@ anoc2_smmu: iommu@16c0000 {
status = "disabled";
};
+ a2noc: interconnect@1704000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm660-a2noc";
+ reg = <0x01704000 0xc100>;
+ #interconnect-cells = <1>;
+ clock-names = "bus", "bus_a";
+ clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_AGGR2_NOC_CLK>,
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_AGGR2_NOC_A_CLK>;
+ };
+
+ mnoc: interconnect@1745000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm660-mnoc";
+ reg = <0x01745000 0xA010>;
+ #interconnect-cells = <1>;
+ clock-names = "bus", "bus_a", "iface";
+ clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_MMSSNOC_AXI_CLK>,
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_MMSSNOC_AXI_CLK_A>,
+ <&mmcc AHB_CLK_SRC>;
+ };
+
tcsr_mutex_regs: syscon@1f40000 {
compatible = "syscon";
reg = <0x01f40000 0x20000>;
@@ -1156,6 +1203,18 @@ mmss_smmu: iommu@cd00000 {
status = "disabled";
};
+ gnoc: interconnect@17900000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sdm660-gnoc";
+ reg = <0x17900000 0xe000>;
+ #interconnect-cells = <1>;
+ /*
+ * This one apparently features no clocks,
+ * so let's not mess with the driver needlessly
+ */
+ clock-names = "bus", "bus_a";
+ clocks = <&xo_board>, <&xo_board>;
+ };
+
apcs_glb: mailbox@17911000 {
compatible = "qcom,sdm660-apcs-hmss-global";
reg = <0x17911000 0x1000>;
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
