linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Update Q6V5 MSS node

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 22:53:17 +0000
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, mka@...omium.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org, will@...nel.org, ohad@...ery.com,
        agross@...nel.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        robin.murphy@....com, joro@...tes.org, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, evgreen@...omium.org,
        dianders@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Update Q6V5 MSS node

Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-07-21 10:16:14)
> On 2021-07-21 11:17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-07-20 03:13:00)
> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >> index 56ea172f641f..6d3687744440 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
> >> @@ -586,7 +586,8 @@
> >>
> >>                 remoteproc_mpss: remoteproc@...0000 {
> >>                         compatible = "qcom,sc7280-mpss-pas";
> >> -                       reg = <0 0x04080000 0 0x10000>;
> >> +                       reg = <0 0x04080000 0 0x10000>, <0 0x04180000
> >> 0 0x48>;
> >> +                       reg-names = "qdsp6", "rmb";
> >>
> >>                         interrupts-extended = <&intc GIC_SPI 264
> >> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> >>                                               <&modem_smp2p_in 0
> >> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>,
> >> @@ -597,8 +598,11 @@
> >>                         interrupt-names = "wdog", "fatal", "ready",
> >> "handover",
> >>                                           "stop-ack", "shutdown-ack";
> >>
> >> -                       clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
> >> -                       clock-names = "xo";
> >> +                       clocks = <&gcc GCC_MSS_CFG_AHB_CLK>,
> >> +                                <&gcc GCC_MSS_OFFLINE_AXI_CLK>,
> >> +                                <&gcc GCC_MSS_SNOC_AXI_CLK>,
> >> +                                <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
> >> +                       clock-names = "iface", "offline", "snoc_axi",
> >> "xo";
> >>
> >>                         power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7280_CX>,
> >>                                         <&rpmhpd SC7280_MSS>;
> >> @@ -611,6 +615,15 @@
> >>                         qcom,smem-states = <&modem_smp2p_out 0>;
> >>                         qcom,smem-state-names = "stop";
> >>
> >> +                       resets = <&aoss_reset AOSS_CC_MSS_RESTART>,
> >> +                                <&pdc_reset PDC_MODEM_SYNC_RESET>;
> >> +                       reset-names = "mss_restart", "pdc_reset";
> >> +
> >> +                       qcom,halt-regs = <&tcsr_mutex 0x23000 0x25000
> >> 0x28000 0x33000>;
> >> +                       qcom,ext-regs = <&tcsr_regs 0x10000 0x10004
> >> +                                        &tcsr_mutex 0x26004 0x26008>;
> >> +                       qcom,qaccept-regs = <&tcsr_mutex 0x23030
> >> 0x23040 0x23020>;
> >> +
> >>                         status = "disabled";
> >>
> >>                         glink-edge {
> >
> > Any reason to not combine this stuff with the previous patch?
>
> I split it into two separate
> patches just to show that sc7280
> supports two ways of bringing
> modem out of reset and method
> used is determined by the platform.
>

Ok. But if there are two methods do they work with the same node in
sc7280.dtsi? Because I was expecting to see the node introduced in the
SoC dtsi file in the final form instead of the half form and then be
amended in this patch.