Hi Nikolaus,
On 2020-04-15 5:50 a.m., H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
Am 15.04.2020 um 13:49 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski krzk@kernel.org:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 10:36, H. Nikolaus Schaller hns@goldelico.com wrote:
From: Jonathan Bakker xc-racer2@live.ca
to add support for SGX540 GPU.
Do not continue the subject in commit msg like it is one sentence. These are two separate sentences, so commit msg starts with capital letter and it is sentence by itself.
Sorry, that's my fault, I should know better.
Nikolaus took this from my testing tree and I apparently didn't have it in as good as state as I should have.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Bakker xc-racer2@live.ca Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller hns@goldelico.com
arch/arm/boot/dts/s5pv210.dtsi | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/s5pv210.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/s5pv210.dtsi index 2ad642f51fd9..e7fc709c0cca 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/s5pv210.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/s5pv210.dtsi @@ -512,6 +512,21 @@ vic3: interrupt-controller@f2300000 { #interrupt-cells = <1>; };
g3d: g3d@f3000000 {compatible = "samsung,s5pv210-sgx540-120";reg = <0xf3000000 0x10000>;interrupt-parent = <&vic2>;interrupts = <10>;clock-names = "sclk";clocks = <&clocks CLK_G3D>;Not part of bindings, please remove or add to the bindings.
Well, the bindings should describe what is common for all SoC and they are quite different in what they need in addition.
Thererfore we have no "additionalProperties: false" in the bindings [PATCH v6 01/12].
power-domains = <&pd S5PV210_PD_G3D>;Ditto
In this case it might be possible to add the clock/power-domains etc. to a wrapper node compatible to "simple-pm-bus" or similar and make the gpu a child of it.
@Jontahan: can you please give it a try?
The power-domains comes from a (so far) non-upstreamed power domain driver for s5pv210 that I've been playing around with. It's not necessary for proper operation as it's on by default.
Looking at simple-pm-bus, I don't really understand its purpose. Is it a way of separating out a power domain from a main device's node? Or is it designed for when you have multiple devices under the same power domain?
Nikolaus, I can regenerate a proper patch for you if you want that's not based on my testing tree.
assigned-clocks = <&clocks MOUT_G3D>, <&clocks DOUT_G3D>;assigned-clock-rates = <0>, <66700000>;assigned-clock-parents = <&clocks MOUT_MPLL>;Probably this should have status disabled because you do not set regulator supply.
I don't believe there is a regulator on s5pv210, if there is, then it is a fixed regulator with no control on both s5pv210 devices that I have.
The vendor driver did use the regulator framework for its power domain implementation, but that definitely shouldn't be upstreamed.
BR and thanks, Nikolaus
Thanks, Jonathan