Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Add base QDU1000/QRU1000 DTSIs

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 31/10/2022 17:49, Melody Olvera wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/27/2022 8:21 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/10/2022 16:04, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>> Add the base DTSI files for QDU1000 and QRU1000 SoCs, including base
>>> descriptions of CPUs, GCC, RPMHCC, QUP, TLMM, and interrupt-controller
>>> to boot to shell with console on these SoCs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi | 1406 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
>> and lists to CC.  It might happen, that command when run on an older
>> kernel, gives you outdated entries.  Therefore please be sure you base
>> your patches on recent Linux kernel.
> Sure thing; we talked about this on a different patch.
>>
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qru1000.dtsi |   27 +
>>>  2 files changed, 1433 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi
>>>  create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qru1000.dtsi
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..76474106e931
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,1406 @@
>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>>> +/*
>>> + * Copyright (c) 2022 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> + */
>> (...)
>>
>>> +
>>> +	soc: soc@0 {
>>> +		#address-cells = <2>;
>>> +		#size-cells = <2>;
>>> +		ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x10 0>;
>>> +		dma-ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x10 0>;
>>> +		compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> +
>>> +		gcc: clock-controller@80000 {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,gcc-qdu1000", "syscon";
>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x80000 0x0 0x1f4200>;
>>> +			#clock-cells = <1>;
>>> +			#reset-cells = <1>;
>>> +			#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>> +			clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&sleep_clk>;
>>> +			clock-names = "bi_tcxo", "sleep_clk";
>>> +		};
>>> +
>>> +		gpi_dma0: dma-controller@900000  {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma";
>> You should add here a specific compatible as well. Same in other places.
>> All places. I had impression we talked about this few times, so I don't
>> know what is missing on your side.
>>
>> This must be:
>> "qcom,qdu1000-gpi-dma", "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma"
> Got it. I talked to Stephan and he said either your suggestion or just using
> preexisting compatibles would be ok. I thought it might be cleaner to not
> have the qdu compats, but I'm fine either way.
>>
>>> +			#dma-cells = <3>;
>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x900000 0x0 0x60000>;
>>> +			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 244 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 245 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 246 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 247 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 248 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 249 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 250 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 251 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 252 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 253 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 254 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>>> +				     <GIC_SPI 255 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> +			dma-channels = <12>;
>>> +			dma-channel-mask = <0x3f>;
>>> +			iommus = <&apps_smmu 0xf6 0x0>;
>>> +		};
>>> +
>> (...)
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> +		tlmm: pinctrl@f000000 {
>>> +			compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-tlmm";
>>> +			reg = <0x0 0xf000000 0x0 0x1000000>;
>>> +			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> +			gpio-controller;
>>> +			#gpio-cells = <2>;
>>> +			interrupt-controller;
>>> +			#interrupt-cells = <2>;
>>> +			gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 151>;
>>> +			wakeup-parent = <&pdc>;
>>> +
>>> +			qup_uart0_default: qup-uart0-default-state {
>>> +				pins = "gpio6", "gpio7", "gpio8", "gpio9";
>>> +				function = "qup00";
>>> +			};
>>> +
>>> +			qup_i2c1_data_clk: qup-i2c1-data-clk-state {
>>> +				pins = "gpio10", "gpio11";
>>> +				function = "qup01";
>>> +				drive-strength = <2>;
>> Can we have some generic agreement where to put drive-strengths and bias?
>>
>> See also:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20221026200357.391635-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD=FV=VUL4GmjaibAMhKNdpEso_Hg_R=XeMaqah1LSj_9-Ce4Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> Not sure how much two-sense I have for the conversation at large, but generally I agree with Doug's
> point in the first paragraph. Pulls for this soc are consistent across boards so I don't think it makes
> sense to move them to the board files here. I vote that these stay here.
>>

I would be great if Konrad and Bjorn shared their opinion on this... but
wait, you did not Cc all maintainers... Eh.

Best regards,
Krzysztof