On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 01:42:33PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 4/6/24 05:23, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 10:41:32AM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > On recent (SM8550+) Snapdragon platforms, the GPU speed bin data is
> > > abstracted through SMEM, instead of being directly available in a fuse.
> > >
> > > Add support for SMEM-based speed binning, which includes getting
> > > "feature code" and "product code" from said source and parsing them
> > > to form something that lets us match OPPs against.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dyb...@linaro.org>
> > > ---
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + ret = qcom_smem_get_product_code(&pcode);
> > > + if (ret) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "Couldn't get product code from SMEM!\n");
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Don't consider fcode for external feature codes */
> > > + if (fcode <= SOCINFO_FC_EXT_RESERVE)
> > > + fcode = SOCINFO_FC_UNKNOWN;
> > > +
> > > + *speedbin = FIELD_PREP(ADRENO_SKU_ID_PCODE, pcode) |
> > > + FIELD_PREP(ADRENO_SKU_ID_FCODE, fcode);
> >
> > What about just asking the qcom_smem for the 'gpu_bin' and hiding gory
> > details there? It almost feels that handling raw PCODE / FCODE here is
> > too low-level and a subject to change depending on the socinfo format.
>
> No, the FCODE & PCODE can be interpreted differently across consumers.
That's why I wrote about asking for 'gpu_bin'.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > }
> > > int adreno_gpu_init(struct drm_device *drm, struct platform_device
> > > *pdev,
> > > @@ -1098,9 +1129,9 @@ int adreno_gpu_init(struct drm_device *drm, struct
> > > platform_device *pdev,
> > > devm_pm_opp_set_clkname(dev, "core");
> > > }
> > > - if (adreno_read_speedbin(dev, &speedbin) || !speedbin)
> > > + if (adreno_read_speedbin(adreno_gpu, dev, &speedbin) || !speedbin)
> > > speedbin = 0xffff;
> > > - adreno_gpu->speedbin = (uint16_t) (0xffff & speedbin);
> >
> > the &= 0xffff should probably go to the adreno_read_speedbin / nvmem
> > case. WDYT?
>
> Ok, I can keep it, though realistically if this ever does anything
> useful, it likely means the dt is wrong
Yes, but if DT is wrong, we should probably fail in a sensible way. I
just wanted to point out that previously we had this &0xffff, while your
patch silently removes it.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
