linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] drm/panfrost: Add support for a second regulator for the GPU

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Date:   Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:14:42 +0000
From:   Steven Price <steven.price@....com>
To:     Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com>,
        Hsin-Yi Wang <hsinyi@...omium.org>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] drm/panfrost: Add support for a second regulator
 for the GPU

On 08/01/2020 22:52, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 9:23 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 01:23:34PM +0800, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
>>
>>> Some GPUs, namely, the bifrost/g72 part on MT8183, have a second
>>> regulator for their SRAM, let's add support for that.
>>
>>> +     pfdev->regulator_sram = devm_regulator_get_optional(pfdev->dev, "sram");
>>> +     if (IS_ERR(pfdev->regulator_sram)) {
>>
>> This supply is required for the devices that need it so I'd therefore
>> expect the driver to request the supply non-optionally based on the
>> compatible string rather than just hoping that a missing regulator isn't
>> important.
> 
> That'd be a bit awkward to match, though... Currently all bifrost
> share the same compatible "arm,mali-bifrost", and it'd seem
> weird/wrong to match "mediatek,mt8183-mali" in this driver? I have no
> idea if any other Mali implementation will require a second regulator,
> but with the MT8183 we do need it, see below.
> 
>> Though I do have to wonder given the lack of any active
>> management of the supply if this is *really* part of the GPU or if it's
>> more of a SoC thing, it's not clear what exactly adding this code is
>> achieving.
> 
> Well if devfreq was working (see patch 7
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11322851/ for a partial
> implementation), it would adjust both mali and sram regulators, see
> the OPP table in patch 2
> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11322825/): SRAM voltage needs to
> be increased for frequencies >=698Mhz.
> 
> Now if you have some better idea how to implement this, I'm all ears!

I'm not sure if it's better, but could we just encode the list of regulators into device tree. I'm a bit worried about special casing an "sram" regulator given that other platforms might have a similar situation but call the second regulator a different name.

Steve

> Thanks.
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> 

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives