[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200129012411.GI46072@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 17:24:11 -0800
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
georgi.djakov@...aro.org, saravanak@...gle.com, nm@...com,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org,
david.brown@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 09/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: Add cpu OPP tables
Hi Sibi,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 01:33:49AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Add OPP tables required to scale DDR/L3 per freq-domain on SDM845 SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 453 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 453 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> index c036bab49fc03..8cb976118407b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> @@ -199,6 +199,12 @@
> qcom,freq-domain = <&cpufreq_hw 0>;
> #cooling-cells = <2>;
> next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> + operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>,
> + <&cpu0_ddr_bw_opp_table>,
> + <&cpu0_l3_bw_opp_table>;
> + interconnects = <&gladiator_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC &mem_noc SLAVE_EBI1>,
> + <&osm_l3 MASTER_OSM_L3_APPS &osm_l3 SLAVE_OSM_L3>;
This apparently depends on the 'Split SDM845 interconnect nodes and
consolidate RPMh support' series
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/list/?series=226281),
which isn't mentioned in the cover letter.
I also couldn't find a patch on the lists that adds the 'osm_l3'
interconnect node for SDM845. The same is true for SC7180 (next
patch of this series). These patches may be available in custom trees,
but that isn't really helpful for upstream review.
I would suggest to focus on landing the dependencies of this series,
before proceding with it (or at least most of them), there are plenty
and without the dependencies this series isn't going to land, it also
makes it hard for testers and reviewers to get all the pieces
together. In particular the last post of the series 'Add
required-opps support to devfreq passive gov'
(https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/11055499/) is from July 2019 ...
Thanks
Matthias
Powered by blists - more mailing lists