| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d109cbdf-1b0e-ff67-879c-d0955da4898e@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 14:49:45 -0700
From: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: dts: qcom: Add base QDU1000/QRU1000 DTSIs
On 10/27/2022 8:21 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/10/2022 16:04, Melody Olvera wrote:
>> Add the base DTSI files for QDU1000 and QRU1000 SoCs, including base
>> descriptions of CPUs, GCC, RPMHCC, QUP, TLMM, and interrupt-controller
>> to boot to shell with console on these SoCs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi | 1406 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
> and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older
> kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base
> your patches on recent Linux kernel.
Sure thing; we talked about this on a different patch.
>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qru1000.dtsi | 27 +
>> 2 files changed, 1433 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qru1000.dtsi
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..76474106e931
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qdu1000.dtsi
>> @@ -0,0 +1,1406 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (c) 2022 Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> + */
> (...)
>
>> +
>> + soc: soc@0 {
>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>> + #size-cells = <2>;
>> + ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x10 0>;
>> + dma-ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x10 0>;
>> + compatible = "simple-bus";
>> +
>> + gcc: clock-controller@...00 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,gcc-qdu1000", "syscon";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x80000 0x0 0x1f4200>;
>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> + clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&sleep_clk>;
>> + clock-names = "bi_tcxo", "sleep_clk";
>> + };
>> +
>> + gpi_dma0: dma-controller@...000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma";
> You should add here a specific compatible as well. Same in other places.
> All places. I had impression we talked about this few times, so I don't
> know what is missing on your side.
>
> This must be:
> "qcom,qdu1000-gpi-dma", "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma"
Got it. I talked to Stephan and he said either your suggestion or just using
preexisting compatibles would be ok. I thought it might be cleaner to not
have the qdu compats, but I'm fine either way.
>
>> + #dma-cells = <3>;
>> + reg = <0x0 0x900000 0x0 0x60000>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 244 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 245 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 246 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 247 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 248 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 249 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 250 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 251 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 252 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 253 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 254 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 255 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + dma-channels = <12>;
>> + dma-channel-mask = <0x3f>;
>> + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0xf6 0x0>;
>> + };
>> +
> (...)
>
>
>> +
>> + tlmm: pinctrl@...0000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-tlmm";
>> + reg = <0x0 0xf000000 0x0 0x1000000>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 208 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + gpio-controller;
>> + #gpio-cells = <2>;
>> + interrupt-controller;
>> + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> + gpio-ranges = <&tlmm 0 0 151>;
>> + wakeup-parent = <&pdc>;
>> +
>> + qup_uart0_default: qup-uart0-default-state {
>> + pins = "gpio6", "gpio7", "gpio8", "gpio9";
>> + function = "qup00";
>> + };
>> +
>> + qup_i2c1_data_clk: qup-i2c1-data-clk-state {
>> + pins = "gpio10", "gpio11";
>> + function = "qup01";
>> + drive-strength = <2>;
> Can we have some generic agreement where to put drive-strengths and bias?
>
> See also:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20221026200357.391635-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org/
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAD=FV=VUL4GmjaibAMhKNdpEso_Hg_R=XeMaqah1LSj_9-Ce4Q@mail.gmail.com/
Not sure how much two-sense I have for the conversation at large, but generally I agree with Doug's
point in the first paragraph. Pulls for this soc are consistent across boards so I don't think it makes
sense to move them to the board files here. I vote that these stay here.
>
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + };
> (...)
>
>> + };
>> +
>> + cpufreq_hw: cpufreq@...90000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sm8250-cpufreq-epss", "qcom,cpufreq-epss";
> This is not sm8250...
Ack.
>
>> + reg = <0x0 0x17d90000 0x0 0x1000>, <0x0 0x17d91000 0x0 0x1000>;
>> + reg-names = "freq-domain0", "freq-domain1";
>> + clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&gcc GCC_GPLL0>;
>> + clock-names = "xo", "alternate";
>> + #freq-domain-cells = <1>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + gem_noc: interconnect@...00000 {
>> + reg = <0x0 0x19100000 0x0 0xB8080>;
>> + compatible = "qcom,qdu1000-gem-noc";
>> + #interconnect-cells = <1>;
>> + qcom,bcm-voters = <&apps_bcm_voter>;
>> + };
>> + };
Thanks,
Melody
Powered by blists - more mailing lists