[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b47185a6-07aa-d159-2bce-aa84be9d0abe@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2022 15:49:17 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@...cinc.com>,
Steev Klimaszewski <steev@...i.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org>,
Georgi Djakov <djakov@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845: add LLCC BWMON
On 26/07/2022 14:01, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>>>> I think you may be right; I just applied this patchset to -next
>>>> (20220722) and i do not see the error message there. On my 5.19-rc7
>>>> tree, i am also testing a patchset that enables qcom devices to access
>>>> efivars, so possibly we are ending up in secure world there?
>>>
>>> Actually mapping of IO space should not touch secure world, so this was
>>> a long shot assuming you test it on the next.
>>>
>>
>> The memory region specified in device tree overlaps with the llcc system
>> cache controller node. Steev probably had the QCOM_LLCC config enabled
>> when he tested it out on his branch.
>
> From what I see we can probably get away with restricting the llcc_base
> reg region to just llcc0_common region and leave the lcc-bwmon as is.
Och, that IO mapping for llcc is quite big. I'll try that.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists