Message-ID: <CAFA6WYMa_0OMkjUdvhYtWZ9SvQx5bB8+YrBZN08BaDXXOtPPNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:20:05 +0530
From: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
To: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Cc: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, andersson@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, 
	krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, 
	caleb.connolly@...aro.org, neil.armstrong@...aro.org, 
	laetitia.mariottini@...com, pascal.eberhard@...com, abdou.saker@...com, 
	jimmy.lalande@...com, benjamin.missey@....se.com, daniel.thompson@...aro.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jagdish Gediya <jagdish.gediya@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: apq8016: Add Schneider HMIBSC
 board DTS

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 18:54, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 05:26:27PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 16:13, Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 03:02:31PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 14:48, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 3/14/24 10:04, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 18:34, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >> On 3/13/24 13:30, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > > > >>> Add Schneider Electric HMIBSC board DTS. The HMIBSC board is an IIoT Edge
> > > > > >>> Box Core board based on the Qualcomm APQ8016E SoC.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Support for Schneider Electric HMIBSC. Features:
> > > > > >>> - Qualcomm Snapdragon 410C SoC - APQ8016 (4xCortex A53, Adreno 306)
> > > > > >>> - 1GiB RAM
> > > > > >>> - 8GiB eMMC, SD slot
> > > > > >>> - WiFi and Bluetooth
> > > > > >>> - 2x Host, 1x Device USB port
> > > > > >>> - HDMI
> > > > > >>> - Discrete TPM2 chip over SPI
> > > > > >>> - USB ethernet adaptors (soldered)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Co-developed-by: Jagdish Gediya <jagdish.gediya@...aro.org>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Jagdish Gediya <jagdish.gediya@...aro.org>
> > > > > >>> Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
> > > > > >>> ---
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [...]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> +     memory@...00000 {
> > > > > >>> +             reg = <0 0x80000000 0 0x40000000>;
> > > > > >>> +     };
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm not sure the entirety of DRAM is accessible..
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This override should be unnecessary, as bootloaders generally update
> > > > > >> the size field anyway.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On this board, U-Boot is used as the first stage bootloader (replacing
> > > > > > Little Kernel (LK), thanks to Stephan's work). And U-Boot consumes
> > > > > > memory range from DT as Linux does but doesn't require any memory to
> > > > > > be reserved for U-Boot itself. So apart from reserved memory nodes
> > > > > > explicitly described in DT all the other DRAM regions are accessible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still, u-boot has code to fetch the size dynamically, no?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No U-Boot being the first stage bootloader fetches size from DT which
> > > > is bundled into U-Boot binary.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Back when I added support for using U-Boot as first stage bootloader on
> > > DB410c the way it worked is that U-Boot used a fixed amount of DRAM
> > > (originally 968 MiB, later 1 GiB since I fixed this in commit
> > > 1d667227ea51 ("board: dragonboard410c: Fix PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE") [1]).
> > > When booting Linux, the Linux DT was dynamically patched with the right
> > > amount of DRAM (obtained from SMEM). So if you had e.g. a Geniatech DB4
> > > board with 2 GiB DRAM, U-Boot was only using 1 GiB of DRAM, but Linux
> > > later got the full 2 GiB patched into its DTB.
> > >
> > > I didn't have much time for testing U-Boot myself lately but a quick
> > > look at the recent changes suggest that Caleb accidentally removed that
> > > functionality in the recent cleanup. Specifically, the SMEM-based DRAM
> > > size detection was removed in commit 14868845db54 ("board:
> > > dragonboard410c: import board code from mach-snapdragon" [2]), the
> > > msm_fixup_memory() function does not seem to exist anymore now. :')
> >
> > Ah now I see the reasoning for that particular piece of code. Is SMEM
> > based approach the standardized way used by early stage boot-loaders
> > on other Qcom SoCs too?
> >
>
> It is definitely used on all the SoCs that were deployed with LK. I am
> not entirely sure about the newer ABL/UEFI-based ones. A quick look at
> the ABL source code suggests it is abstracted through an EFI protocol
> there (so we cannot see where the information comes from with just the
> open-source code). However, in my experience SMEM data structures are
> usually kept quite stable (or properly versioned), so it is quite likely
> that we could use this approach for all Qualcomm SoCs.
>

If the SoCs which support this standardized way to dynamic discover
DRAM size via SMEM then why do we need to rely on DT at all for those
SoCs? Can't U-Boot and Linux have the same driver to fetch DRAM size
via SMEM? I am not sure if it's an appropriate way for U-Boot to fixup
DT when that information can be discovered dynamically.

> > >
> > > Also, the DRAM size is now always taken from the DT (which is probably
> > > better than the previous hardcoded size in the U-Boot board code).
> > >
> > > I think we should bring the dynamic DRAM size detection back, because
> > > there are quite some boards available with varying DRAM size. Restoring
> > > msm_fixup_memory() would likely be easiest, I guess the ideal solution
> > > would be to parse SMEM in U-Boot's dram_init() function so even U-Boot
> > > has the correct amount of DRAM to work with.
> >
> > In the context of the HMIBSC board, it has 1 GB RAM LPDDR3 internal
> > not expandable. IMO, having it in DT as default should be fine.
> >
>
> Right. I was more talking in terms of DB410c here, where the lack of
> this feature is kind of a regression.
>
> Personally, I'm fine if you put the memory node here like this. If there
> are concerns from others you could also move it to the -u-boot.dtsi and
> omit it for Linux.

In U-Boot we encourage people to drop -u-boot.dtsi entirely rather
than the opposite such that we have a canonical devicetree usage
especially with OF_UPSTREAM enabled.

-Sumit

>
> Thanks,
> Stephan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists