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

From: Trilok Soni
Date: Fri Nov 04 2022 - 00:06:06 EST

+ Adding Konrad, Bjorn is already there in this email

On 11/3/2022 2:13 PM, Melody Olvera wrote:


On 11/2/2022 9:24 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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kernel, gives you outdated entries.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.
I'm not sure why this is being brought up again; we've already discussed this here
https://lore.kernel.org/all/9707bf67-1b22-8a77-7193-fc909b4f49de@xxxxxxxxxxx/
Would you like to discuss this issue here, on the next version, or not at all?

On a side note, I'm uncomfortable with how our continued interactions are going
and do not believe this to be conductive to continued collaboration. I would ask that
we keep our correspondence polite and professional moving forward.

I have added Konrad and Bjorn is already there on the thread. Our understanding is that CCing maintainers comment is for next patch series after this one.

Bjorn, please check and comment on above? If requires we should start writing the guidelines for MSM boards since lot of comments are based on the experience or knowledge in the community Vs caught by tools - so it is easy to be missed by developers submitting new boards. Thoughts?

---Trilok Soni