| Message ID | 20180827151112.25211-6-jcrouse@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add interconnect support + bindings for A630 GPU | expand |
Hi Jordan, On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 8:42 PM Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Add the nodes to describe the Adreno GPU and GMU devices. > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > index cdaabeb3c995..10db0ceb3699 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > @@ -192,6 +192,59 @@ > method = "smc"; > }; > > +gpu_opp_table: adreno-opp-table { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > + > + opp-710000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; > + qcom,level = <416>; > + }; > + > + opp-675000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <675000000>; > + qcom,level = <384>; > + }; > + > + opp-596000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <596000000>; > + qcom,level = <320>; > + }; > + > + opp-520000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <520000000>; > + qcom,level = <256>; > + }; > + > + opp-414000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <414000000>; > + qcom,level = <192>; > + }; > + > + opp-342000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <342000000>; > + qcom,level = <128>; > + }; > + > + opp-257000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <257000000>; > + qcom,level = <64>; > + }; > + }; > + > + gmu_opp_table: adreno-gmu-opp-table { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > + > + opp-400000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <400000000>; > + qcom,level = <128>; > + }; > + > + opp-200000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <200000000>; > + qcom,level = <48>; > + }; > + }; > + > soc: soc { > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > @@ -323,5 +376,73 @@ > status = "disabled"; > }; > }; > + > + adreno_smmu: adreno-smmu@5040000 { iommu@5040000 as pointed out by Rob in [1] > + compatible = "qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2"; > + reg = <0x5040000 0x10000>; > + #iommu-cells = <1>; > + #global-interrupts = <2>; > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 229 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > + <GIC_SPI 231 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > + <GIC_SPI 364 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 365 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 366 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 367 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 368 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 369 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 370 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, > + <GIC_SPI 371 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; > + clocks = <&gcc GCC_GPU_MEMNOC_GFX_CLK>, > + <&gcc GCC_GPU_CFG_AHB_CLK>; > + clock-names = "bus", "iface"; > + > + power-domains = <&gpucc GPU_CX_GDSC>; and for this you need to include the gpucc dt-bindings header which is coming from Amit's gpucc driver patch. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10534999/ Best regards Vivek [snip]
On 27-08-18, 09:11, Jordan Crouse wrote: > Add the nodes to describe the Adreno GPU and GMU devices. > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > index cdaabeb3c995..10db0ceb3699 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > @@ -192,6 +192,59 @@ > method = "smc"; > }; > > +gpu_opp_table: adreno-opp-table { > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > + > + opp-710000000 { > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; > + qcom,level = <416>; What is qcom,level here ? Is it different than the RPM voting thing ? If not then you need to follow what Rajendra, Niklas are doing as well. There needs to be a genpd which needs to carry this value and the gpu's table will have required-opps entry to point to it.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:16:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27-08-18, 09:11, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > Add the nodes to describe the Adreno GPU and GMU devices. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> > > --- > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > index cdaabeb3c995..10db0ceb3699 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > @@ -192,6 +192,59 @@ > > method = "smc"; > > }; > > > > +gpu_opp_table: adreno-opp-table { > > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > > + > > + opp-710000000 { > > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; > > + qcom,level = <416>; > > What is qcom,level here ? Is it different than the RPM voting thing ? > > If not then you need to follow what Rajendra, Niklas are doing as > well. There needs to be a genpd which needs to carry this value and > the gpu's table will have required-opps entry to point to it. I don't think it is the same (we have some special considerations here) but I missed the new work from the other folks and I want to review it before I conclude one way or the other. Is there a link to the latest and greatest that I can use to get caught up? Jordan
On 10-10-18, 08:29, Jordan Crouse wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:16:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 27-08-18, 09:11, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > > Add the nodes to describe the Adreno GPU and GMU devices. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > index cdaabeb3c995..10db0ceb3699 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > @@ -192,6 +192,59 @@ > > > method = "smc"; > > > }; > > > > > > +gpu_opp_table: adreno-opp-table { > > > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > > > + > > > + opp-710000000 { > > > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; > > > + qcom,level = <416>; > > > > What is qcom,level here ? Is it different than the RPM voting thing ? > > > > If not then you need to follow what Rajendra, Niklas are doing as > > well. There needs to be a genpd which needs to carry this value and > > the gpu's table will have required-opps entry to point to it. > > I don't think it is the same (we have some special considerations here) > but I missed the new work from the other folks and I want to review it > before I conclude one way or the other. Is there a link to the latest > and greatest that I can use to get caught up? lkml.kernel.org/r/20180627045234.27403-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org +Rajendra/Niklas, please review Jordan's work as well to see if the qcom,level thing is similar to what you guys are using.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:01:49PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-10-18, 08:29, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:16:28PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 27-08-18, 09:11, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > > > Add the nodes to describe the Adreno GPU and GMU devices. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > > index cdaabeb3c995..10db0ceb3699 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi > > > > @@ -192,6 +192,59 @@ > > > > method = "smc"; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +gpu_opp_table: adreno-opp-table { > > > > + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; > > > > + > > > > + opp-710000000 { > > > > + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; > > > > + qcom,level = <416>; > > > > > > What is qcom,level here ? Is it different than the RPM voting thing ? > > > > > > If not then you need to follow what Rajendra, Niklas are doing as > > > well. There needs to be a genpd which needs to carry this value and > > > the gpu's table will have required-opps entry to point to it. > > > > I don't think it is the same (we have some special considerations here) > > but I missed the new work from the other folks and I want to review it > > before I conclude one way or the other. Is there a link to the latest > > and greatest that I can use to get caught up? > > lkml.kernel.org/r/20180627045234.27403-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org > > +Rajendra/Niklas, please review Jordan's work as well to see if the > qcom,level thing is similar to what you guys are using. qcom,level comes straight from: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-2-rnayak@codeaurora.org/ But in this case instead of using the CPU to program the RPMh we are passing the value to a microprocessor (the GMU) and that will do the vote on our behalf (Technically we use the value to look up the vote in the cmd-db database and pass that to the GMU) This is why the qcom,level was added in the first place so we could at least share the nomenclature with the rpmhd if not the implementation. Jordan > -- > viresh > _______________________________________________ > Freedreno mailing list > Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
On 10-10-18, 08:48, Jordan Crouse wrote: > qcom,level comes straight from: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-2-rnayak@codeaurora.org/ > > But in this case instead of using the CPU to program the RPMh we are passing > the value to a microprocessor (the GMU) and that will do the vote on our behalf > (Technically we use the value to look up the vote in the cmd-db database and > pass that to the GMU) > > This is why the qcom,level was added in the first place so we could at least > share the nomenclature with the rpmhd if not the implementation. How you actually pass the vote to the underlying hardware, RPMh or GMU, is irrelevant to the whole thing. What is important is how we describe that in DT and how we represent the whole thing. We have chosen genpd + OPP to do this and same should be used by you as well. Another benefit is that the genpd core will do vote aggregation for you here.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:21:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-10-18, 08:48, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > qcom,level comes straight from: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-2-rnayak@codeaurora.org/ > > > > But in this case instead of using the CPU to program the RPMh we are passing > > the value to a microprocessor (the GMU) and that will do the vote on our behalf > > (Technically we use the value to look up the vote in the cmd-db database and > > pass that to the GMU) > > > > This is why the qcom,level was added in the first place so we could at least > > share the nomenclature with the rpmhd if not the implementation. > > How you actually pass the vote to the underlying hardware, RPMh or > GMU, is irrelevant to the whole thing. What is important is how we > describe that in DT and how we represent the whole thing. > > We have chosen genpd + OPP to do this and same should be used by you > as well. Another benefit is that the genpd core will do vote > aggregation for you here. I'm not sure what you are suggesting? The vote is represented in DT exactly as described in the bindings. Jordan > -- > viresh > _______________________________________________ > Freedreno mailing list > Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
On 10-10-18, 09:10, Jordan Crouse wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:21:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 10-10-18, 08:48, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > > qcom,level comes straight from: > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-2-rnayak@codeaurora.org/ > > > > > > But in this case instead of using the CPU to program the RPMh we are passing > > > the value to a microprocessor (the GMU) and that will do the vote on our behalf > > > (Technically we use the value to look up the vote in the cmd-db database and > > > pass that to the GMU) > > > > > > This is why the qcom,level was added in the first place so we could at least > > > share the nomenclature with the rpmhd if not the implementation. > > > > How you actually pass the vote to the underlying hardware, RPMh or > > GMU, is irrelevant to the whole thing. What is important is how we > > describe that in DT and how we represent the whole thing. > > > > We have chosen genpd + OPP to do this and same should be used by you > > as well. Another benefit is that the genpd core will do vote > > aggregation for you here. > > I'm not sure what you are suggesting? The vote is represented in DT exactly as > described in the bindings. Look at how Rajendra has done it to see the difference. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-3-rnayak@codeaurora.org/
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:32:16AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 10-10-18, 09:10, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 08:21:39PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 10-10-18, 08:48, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > > > qcom,level comes straight from: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-2-rnayak@codeaurora.org/ > > > > > > > > But in this case instead of using the CPU to program the RPMh we are passing > > > > the value to a microprocessor (the GMU) and that will do the vote on our behalf > > > > (Technically we use the value to look up the vote in the cmd-db database and > > > > pass that to the GMU) > > > > > > > > This is why the qcom,level was added in the first place so we could at least > > > > share the nomenclature with the rpmhd if not the implementation. > > > > > > How you actually pass the vote to the underlying hardware, RPMh or > > > GMU, is irrelevant to the whole thing. What is important is how we > > > describe that in DT and how we represent the whole thing. > > > > > > We have chosen genpd + OPP to do this and same should be used by you > > > as well. Another benefit is that the genpd core will do vote > > > aggregation for you here. > > > > I'm not sure what you are suggesting? The vote is represented in DT exactly as > > described in the bindings. > > Look at how Rajendra has done it to see the difference. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180627045234.27403-3-rnayak@codeaurora.org/ The GPU domain is completely controlled by the GMU hardware and is powered independently of the CPU. For various reasons the GMU can't come up with the vote itself so we need to construct a vote and send it during initialization. For this we duplicate the code that rmphd does to query the cmd-db and build the values using qcom,level as a guide. This is necessary copypasta as the alternative would be to add the hooks into genpd or add a side hook into the rpmhd to get the values we need and none of that is worth it for a few lines of walking an array. qcom,level serves the purpose for us in this case because we can get the value we need and construct the vote. If we move to using required-opp, thats just another step of parsing for the driver and it establishes a relationship with rmphd on the CPU that shouldn't exist. I do see a good argument for using the symbolic bindings (i.e. RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1) and we can do that easily but beyond that I don't think that we need the extra parsing step. Thanks, Jordan
On 11-10-18, 08:54, Jordan Crouse wrote: I understand what you are trying to say Jordan and I agree with those expectations. But what I am looking for is consistency across Qcom code using the same feature. Which enables better support for the code going forward, etc. And if we are going to go a different way, there must be a very good reason to do that. But let me try to understand the hardware a bit first.. > The GPU domain is completely controlled by the GMU hardware and is powered > independently of the CPU. For various reasons the GMU can't come up with > the vote itself so we need to construct a vote and send it during > initialization. So it is the kernel which needs to send this vote on behalf of the GMU to RPM ? Who does the vote aggregation in this case ? I thought there has to be a single vote going from CPU side to the RPM. Isn't the GMU vote part of that ? > For this we duplicate the code that rmphd does to query the > cmd-db and build the values using qcom,level as a guide. This is necessary > copypasta as the alternative would be to add the hooks into genpd or add a > side hook into the rpmhd to get the values we need and none of that is worth > it for a few lines of walking an array. Initially when I was designing this qcom,level or generically called "performance-state" thingy, I kept the values directly in the OPP node of the consumer (the way you have done it), but then there were discussions which forced us to move this to the genpd level. For example, what will you do if you also need to pass voltage/current in addition to performance-state to the RPM? StephenB actually said we may or may not know these values and we must support both the cases. The opp-microvolt properties of the consumer device (GPU here) should be used to handle the regulators which are controlled by kernel itself and so they can't additionally handle the RPMs data. And so we created separate OPP table for the RPM and represented that as a genpd and we now handle the aggregation in genpd core itself on behalf of all the consumers. > qcom,level serves the purpose for us in this case because we can get the value > we need and construct the vote. If we move to using required-opp, thats just > another step of parsing for the driver and The OPP core shall have all the infrastructure to parse these things and we should keep all such code there to avoid duplication. > it establishes a relationship with > rmphd on the CPU that shouldn't exist. Sure. I am not suggesting that the representation in software should be different from what the hardware is, maybe I didn't understood the hardware design well. > I do see a good argument for using the symbolic bindings (i.e. > RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1) and we can do that easily but beyond that I > don't think that we need the extra parsing step.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 03:33:27PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 11-10-18, 08:54, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > I understand what you are trying to say Jordan and I agree with those > expectations. But what I am looking for is consistency across Qcom > code using the same feature. Which enables better support for the code > going forward, etc. And if we are going to go a different way, there > must be a very good reason to do that. I agree that consistency is good. But the GPU is by design outside of the control of the genpd universe so it is by design not using the same features. It unfortunately does happen to use a similar number in an OPP binding to construct the level mapping but since we can't read the cmd-db from the GMU space this is a necessary evil. > But let me try to understand the hardware a bit first.. > > > The GPU domain is completely controlled by the GMU hardware and is powered > > independently of the CPU. For various reasons the GMU can't come up with > > the vote itself so we need to construct a vote and send it during > > initialization. > > So it is the kernel which needs to send this vote on behalf of the GMU > to RPM ? Who does the vote aggregation in this case ? I thought there > has to be a single vote going from CPU side to the RPM. Isn't the GMU > vote part of that ? For clarity the GMU and GPU are in different domains. The GMU (which is controlled by the CPU) is responsible for generating and sending the vote on behalf of the GPU. From an RPMh perspective The GPU is considered to be separate from the CPU vote. Also, I probably confused you by saying that the kernel constructs the vote for the GPU. It actually constructs the mapping that the GMU can use to send the vote. This is equivalent to rpmhpd_update_level_mapping() in the rpmhpd driver if that helps. > > For this we duplicate the code that rmphd does to query the > > cmd-db and build the values using qcom,level as a guide. This is necessary > > copypasta as the alternative would be to add the hooks into genpd or add a > > side hook into the rpmhd to get the values we need and none of that is worth > > it for a few lines of walking an array. > > Initially when I was designing this qcom,level or generically called > "performance-state" thingy, I kept the values directly in the OPP node > of the consumer (the way you have done it), but then there were > discussions which forced us to move this to the genpd level. For > example, what will you do if you also need to pass voltage/current in > addition to performance-state to the RPM? StephenB actually said we > may or may not know these values and we must support both the cases. I agree that genpd has many responsibilities because it has to deal with many different devices. The GMU / GPU is built for a single purpose and the hardware has been designed accordingly. For the foreseeable future we will not need to know anything beyond the level mapping to operate the GPU. > The opp-microvolt properties of the consumer device (GPU here) should > be used to handle the regulators which are controlled by kernel itself > and so they can't additionally handle the RPMs data. And so we created > separate OPP table for the RPM and represented that as a genpd and we > now handle the aggregation in genpd core itself on behalf of all the > consumers. Yes and it should continue to be that way. This just happens to be a situation where one of the consumers is out of your area of control by design. > > qcom,level serves the purpose for us in this case because we can get the value > > we need and construct the vote. If we move to using required-opp, thats just > > another step of parsing for the driver and > > The OPP core shall have all the infrastructure to parse these things > and we should keep all such code there to avoid duplication. Using required-opp to look up another opp to look up the qcom,level is by definition additional parsing. It doesn't imply that there would be code duplication. > > it establishes a relationship with > > rmphd on the CPU that shouldn't exist. > > Sure. I am not suggesting that the representation in software should > be different from what the hardware is, maybe I didn't understood the > hardware design well. > > > I do see a good argument for using the symbolic bindings (i.e. > > RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1) and we can do that easily but beyond that I > > don't think that we need the extra parsing step. Jordan
Hi, On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 8:11 AM Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> wrote: > + gpu@5000000 { > + compatible = "qcom,adreno-630.2", "qcom,adreno"; > + #stream-id-cells = <16>; > + > + reg = <0x5000000 0x40000>; > + reg-names = "kgsl_3d0_reg_memory"; > + > + /* > + * Look ma, no clocks! The GPU clocks and power are > + * controlled entirely by the GMU > + */ > + > + interrupts = <0 300 0>; > + interrupt-names = "kgsl_3d0_irq"; Drive-by feedback here. The "interrupts" above should be: interrupts = <GIC_SPI 300 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; * GIC_SPI is 0, but GIC_SPI is more documenting. * having 0 for the final element means 'IRQ_TYPE_NONE'. On newer kernels commit 6ef6386ef7c1 ("irqchip/gic-v3: Loudly complain about the use of IRQ_TYPE_NONE") will cause loud yells if you do this. This turns out to be a bit silly because (IIUC) the flags in the device tree are totally ignored if the driver passes in flags itself [1]. ...but I guess we should do it right. I believe the code requesting this irq is a6xx_gmu_get_irq() which requests a level high interrupt, so we should list level high here. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD=FV=XmiOh0Mg0f4a=W0NCH8eb--OQhP2jNAv2ZMpUBOn9n6Q@mail.gmail.com/T/#u -Doug
On 15-10-18, 08:34, Jordan Crouse wrote: > I agree that consistency is good. But the GPU is by design outside of the > control of the genpd universe so it is by design not using the same features. > It unfortunately does happen to use a similar number in an OPP binding to > construct the level mapping but since we can't read the cmd-db from the GMU > space this is a necessary evil. Where do you define how to use this binding in case of GPU? I mean some DT binding doc must have some information to avoid confusion as all other users will have the qcom,level thing in the genpd's OPP table which GPU will have it directly within its OPP table.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:08:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-10-18, 08:34, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > I agree that consistency is good. But the GPU is by design outside of the > > control of the genpd universe so it is by design not using the same features. > > It unfortunately does happen to use a similar number in an OPP binding to > > construct the level mapping but since we can't read the cmd-db from the GMU > > space this is a necessary evil. > > Where do you define how to use this binding in case of GPU? I mean > some DT binding doc must have some information to avoid confusion as > all other users will have the qcom,level thing in the genpd's OPP > table which GPU will have it directly within its OPP table. Jordan suggested to use the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* defines. These are defined in include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h. This header is only referenced in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt (Which this patch series does not seem to use.) This patch series does use Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt but it does not reference include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h. So to further avoid confusion, perhaps it is better to create new defines, instead of reusing the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* defines? Kind regards, Niklas
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:08:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-10-18, 08:34, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > I agree that consistency is good. But the GPU is by design outside of the > > control of the genpd universe so it is by design not using the same features. > > It unfortunately does happen to use a similar number in an OPP binding to > > construct the level mapping but since we can't read the cmd-db from the GMU > > space this is a necessary evil. > > Where do you define how to use this binding in case of GPU? I mean > some DT binding doc must have some information to avoid confusion as > all other users will have the qcom,level thing in the genpd's OPP > table which GPU will have it directly within its OPP table. When I first made the patch I was just using existing OPP bindings for GPU levels as the wording was generic enough to cover both cases. I would be happy to revisit that and indicate that the OPP bindings apply to RPMh and GPU/GMU as we've discussed in this thread. Jordan
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 03:20:27PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 04:08:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 15-10-18, 08:34, Jordan Crouse wrote: > > > I agree that consistency is good. But the GPU is by design outside of the > > > control of the genpd universe so it is by design not using the same features. > > > It unfortunately does happen to use a similar number in an OPP binding to > > > construct the level mapping but since we can't read the cmd-db from the GMU > > > space this is a necessary evil. > > > > Where do you define how to use this binding in case of GPU? I mean > > some DT binding doc must have some information to avoid confusion as > > all other users will have the qcom,level thing in the genpd's OPP > > table which GPU will have it directly within its OPP table. > > Jordan suggested to use the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* defines. > These are defined in include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h. > > This header is only referenced in > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt > (Which this patch series does not seem to use.) > > This patch series does use > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-opp.txt > but it does not reference include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h. > > So to further avoid confusion, perhaps it is better to create new > defines, instead of reusing the RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_* defines? I would be fine with that. I'm also okay with using the raw values, but I figure it would resolve Viresh's concerns if it was made clear that the two use cases were using the same raw values. It would also help the GPU folks visualize the expected level for each frequency entry. Jordan
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi index cdaabeb3c995..10db0ceb3699 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi @@ -192,6 +192,59 @@ method = "smc"; }; +gpu_opp_table: adreno-opp-table { + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; + + opp-710000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <710000000>; + qcom,level = <416>; + }; + + opp-675000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <675000000>; + qcom,level = <384>; + }; + + opp-596000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <596000000>; + qcom,level = <320>; + }; + + opp-520000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <520000000>; + qcom,level = <256>; + }; + + opp-414000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <414000000>; + qcom,level = <192>; + }; + + opp-342000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <342000000>; + qcom,level = <128>; + }; + + opp-257000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <257000000>; + qcom,level = <64>; + }; + }; + + gmu_opp_table: adreno-gmu-opp-table { + compatible = "operating-points-v2-qcom-level"; + + opp-400000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <400000000>; + qcom,level = <128>; + }; + + opp-200000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <200000000>; + qcom,level = <48>; + }; + }; + soc: soc { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; @@ -323,5 +376,73 @@ status = "disabled"; }; }; + + adreno_smmu: adreno-smmu@5040000 { + compatible = "qcom,sdm845-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2"; + reg = <0x5040000 0x10000>; + #iommu-cells = <1>; + #global-interrupts = <2>; + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 229 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 231 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 364 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 365 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 366 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 367 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 368 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 369 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 370 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>, + <GIC_SPI 371 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; + clocks = <&gcc GCC_GPU_MEMNOC_GFX_CLK>, + <&gcc GCC_GPU_CFG_AHB_CLK>; + clock-names = "bus", "iface"; + + power-domains = <&gpucc GPU_CX_GDSC>; + }; + + gpu@5000000 { + compatible = "qcom,adreno-630.2", "qcom,adreno"; + #stream-id-cells = <16>; + + reg = <0x5000000 0x40000>; + reg-names = "kgsl_3d0_reg_memory"; + + /* + * Look ma, no clocks! The GPU clocks and power are + * controlled entirely by the GMU + */ + + interrupts = <0 300 0>; + interrupt-names = "kgsl_3d0_irq"; + + iommus = <&adreno_smmu 0>; + + operating-points-v2 = <&gpu_opp_table>; + + qcom,gmu = <&gmu>; + }; + + gmu: gmu@506a000 { + compatible="qcom,adreno-gmu"; + + reg = <0x506a000 0x30000>, + <0xb280000 0x10000>, + <0xb480000 0x10000>; + reg-names = "gmu", "gmu_pdc", "gmu_pdc_seq"; + + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 304 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 305 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; + interrupt-names = "hfi", "gmu"; + + clocks = <&gpucc GPU_CC_CX_GMU_CLK>, + <&gpucc GPU_CC_CXO_CLK>, + <&gcc GCC_DDRSS_GPU_AXI_CLK>, + <&gcc GCC_GPU_MEMNOC_GFX_CLK>; + clock-names = "gmu", "cxo", "axi", "memnoc"; + + power-domains = <&gpucc GPU_CX_GDSC>; + iommus = <&adreno_smmu 5>; + + operating-points-v2 = <&gmu_opp_table>; + }; }; };
Add the nodes to describe the Adreno GPU and GMU devices. Signed-off-by: Jordan Crouse <jcrouse@codeaurora.org> --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 121 insertions(+)