(non-html)
> Am 06.12.2023 um 17:15 schrieb Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx>:
>
> On 12/6/23 10:02 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 07:04:05PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>> Am 05.12.2023 um 18:33 schrieb Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/5/23 2:17 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>>> + - ti,omap3430-gpu # Rev 121
>>>>>> + - ti,omap3630-gpu # Rev 125
>>>>> Is the "Rev 121" and "Rev 125" a property of the SoC integration (clock/reset/power
>>>>> hookup etc.) or of the integrated SGX core?
>>>>
>>>> The Rev is a property of the SGX core, not the SoC integration.
>>>
>>> Then, it should belong there and not be a comment of the ti,omap*-gpu record.
>>> In this way it does not seem to be a proper hardware description.
>>>
>>> BTW: there are examples where the revision is part of the compatible string, even
>>> if the (Linux) driver makes no use of it:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/xilinx/xilinx_emaclite.c
>> AFAICT these Xilinx devices that put the revisions in the compatible are
>> a different case - they're "soft" IP intended for use in the fabric of
>> an FPGA, and assigning a device specific compatible there does not make
>> sense.
>> In this case it appears that the revision is completely known once you
>> see "ti,omap3630-gpu", so encoding the extra "121" into the compatible
>> string is not required.
>>>
>>>> But it seems that
>>>> compatible string is being used to define both (as we see being debated in the other
>>>> thread on this series).
>>>>
>>>>> In my understanding the Revs are different variants of the SGX core (errata
>>>>> fixes, instruction set, pipeline size etc.). And therefore the current driver code
>>>>> has to be configured by some macros to handle such cases.
>>>>> So the Rev should IMHO be part of the next line:
>>>>>> + - const: img,powervr-sgx530
>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>> + - img,powervr-sgx530-121
>>>>> + - img,powervr-sgx530-125
>>>>> We have a similar definition in the openpvrsgx code.
>>>>> Example: compatible = "ti,omap3-sgx530-121", "img,sgx530-121", "img,sgx530";
>>>>> (I don't mind about the powervr- prefix).
>>>>> This would allow a generic and universal sgx driver (loaded through just matching
>>>>> "img,sgx530") to handle the errata and revision specifics at runtime based on the
>>>>> compatible entry ("img,sgx530-121") and know about SoC integration ("ti,omap3-sgx530-121").
>> The "raw" sgx530 compatible does not seem helpful if the sgx530-121 or
>> sgx530-125 compatibles are also required to be present for the driver to
>> actually function. The revision specific compatibles I would not object
>> to, but everything in here has different revisions anyway - does the
>> same revision actually appear in multiple devices? If it doesn't then I
>> don't see any value in the suffixed compatibles either.
>
> Everything here has different revisions because any device that uses
> the same revision can also use the same base compatible string. For
> instance AM335x SoCs use the SGX530 revision 125, same as OMAP3630,
> so I simply reuse that compatible in their DT as you can see in
> patch [5/10]. I didn't see the need for a new compatible string
> for identical (i.e. "compatible") IP and integration.
Ok, this is a point. As long as there is no SoC which can come with different
SGX revisions the SoC compatible is enough for everything.
I never looked it that way.
>
> The first device to use that IP/revision combo gets the named
> compatible, all others re-use the same compatible where possible.
Hm. If we take this rule, we can even completely leave out all
+ - const: img,powervr-sgx530
+ - const: img,powervr-sgx540
+ - const: img,powervr-sgx544
and just have a list of allsgx compatible SoC:
+ - items:
+ - enum:
+ - ti,am62-gpu # IMG AXE GPU model/revision is fully discoverable
+ - ti,omap3430-gpu # sgx530 Rev 121
+ - ti,omap3630-gpu # sgx530 Rev 125
+ - ingenic,jz4780-gpu # sgx540 Rev 130
+ - ti,omap4430-gpu # sgx540 Rev 120
+ - allwinner,sun6i-a31-gpu # sgx544 MP2 Rev 115
+ - ti,omap4470-gpu # sgx544 MP1 Rev 112
+ - ti,omap5432-gpu # sgx544 MP2 Rev 105
+ - ti,am5728-gpu # sgx544 MP2 Rev 116
+ - ti,am6548-gpu # sgx544 MP1 Rev 117
+ - more to come
>
> Andrew
>
>>>>> And user-space can be made to load the right firmware variant based on "img,sgx530-121"
>>>>> I don't know if there is some register which allows to discover the revision long
>>>>> before the SGX subsystem is initialized and the firmware is up and running.
>>>>> What I know is that it is possible to read out the revision after starting the firmware
>>>>> but it may just echo the version number of the firmware binary provided from user-space.
>>>>
>>>> We should be able to read out the revision (register EUR_CR_CORE_REVISION), the problem is
>>>> today the driver is built for a given revision at compile time.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is something we had planned to get rid of for a long time by using different compatible
>>> strings and some variant specific struct like many others drivers are doing it.
>>> But it was a to big task so nobody did start with it.
>>>
>>>> That is a software issue,
>>>> not something that we need to encode in DT. While the core ID (SGX5xx) can be also detected
>>>> (EUR_CR_CORE_ID), the location of that register changes, and so it does need encoded in
>>>> DT compatible.
>>>
>>> Ok, I didn't know about such registers as there is not much public information available.
>>> Fair enough, there are some error reports about in different forums.
>>>
>>> On the other hand we then must read out this register in more or less early initialization
>>> stages. Even if we know this information to be static and it could be as simple as a list
>>> of compatible strings in the driver.
>>>
>>>> The string "ti,omap3430-gpu" tells us the revision if we cannot detect it (as in the current
>>>> driver), and the SoC integration is generic anyway (just a reg and interrupt).
>>>
>>> It of course tells, but may need a translation table that needs to be maintained in a
>>> different format. Basically the same what the comments show in a non-machine readable
>>> format.
>>>
>>> I just wonder why the specific version can or should not become simply part of the DTS
>>> and needs this indirection.
>>>
>>> Basically it is a matter of openness for future (driver) development and why it needs
>>> careful decisions.
>>>
>>> So in other words: I would prefer to see the comments about versions encoded in the device
>>> tree binary to make it machine readable.
>> It's already machine readable if it is invariant on an SoC given the
>> patch had SoC-specific compatibles.
>
