linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: aim300: add AIM300 AIoT

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 11:38:48 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh@...nel.org, 
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, 
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...cinc.com, 
	Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@...cinc.com>, Ziyue Zhang <quic_ziyuzhan@...cinc.com>, 
	quic_chenlei@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: aim300: add AIM300 AIoT

On Fri, 31 May 2024 at 11:35, Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5/29/2024 11:18 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 06:09:26PM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote:
> >> Add AIM300 AIoT Carrier board DTS support, including usb, UART, PCIe,
> >> I2C functions support.
> >> Here is a diagram of AIM300 AIoT Carrie Board and SoM
> >>   +--------------------------------------------------+
> >>   |             AIM300 AIOT Carrier Board            |
> >>   |                                                  |
> >>   |           +-----------------+                    |
> >>   |power----->| Fixed regulator |---------+          |
> >>   |           +-----------------+         |          |
> >>   |                                       |          |
> >>   |                                       v VPH_PWR  |
> >>   | +----------------------------------------------+ |
> >>   | |                          AIM300 SOM |        | |
> >>   | |                                     |VPH_PWR | |
> >>   | |                                     v        | |
> >>   | |   +-------+       +--------+     +------+    | |
> >>   | |   | UFS   |       | QCS8550|     |PMIC  |    | |
> >>   | |   +-------+       +--------+     +------+    | |
> >>   | |                                              | |
> >>   | +----------------------------------------------+ |
> >>   |                                                  |
> >>   |                    +----+          +------+      |
> >>   |                    |USB |          | UART |      |
> >>   |                    +----+          +------+      |
> >>   +--------------------------------------------------+
> >>
> >> Co-developed-by: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@...cinc.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Qiang Yu <quic_qianyu@...cinc.com>
> >> Co-developed-by: Ziyue Zhang <quic_ziyuzhan@...cinc.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ziyue Zhang <quic_ziyuzhan@...cinc.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <quic_tengfan@...cinc.com>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/Makefile             |   1 +
> >>   .../boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550-aim300-aiot.dts     | 322 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>   2 files changed, 323 insertions(+)
> >>   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8550-aim300-aiot.dts
> >
> > [trimmed]
> >
> >> +&remoteproc_adsp {
> >> +    firmware-name = "qcom/qcs8550/adsp.mbn",
> >> +                    "qcom/qcs8550/adsp_dtbs.elf";
> >
> > Please excuse me, I think I missed those on the previous run.
> >
> > adsp_dtb.mbn
>
> Currently, waht we have released is adsp_dtbs.elf. If we modify it to
> adsp_dtb.mbn, it may cause the ADSP functionality can not boot normally.

Released where? linux-firmware doesn't have such a file. And the modem
partition most likely has a different path for it anyway.

>
> >
> >> +    status = "okay";
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +&remoteproc_cdsp {
> >> +    firmware-name = "qcom/qcs8550/cdsp.mbn",
> >> +                    "qcom/qcs8550/cdsp_dtbs.elf";
> >
> > cdsp_dtb.mbn
>
> CDSP also as above ADSP.
>
> >

> >> +
> >> +    te_active: te-active-state {
> >> +            pins = "gpio86";
> >> +            function = "mdp_vsync";
> >> +            drive-strength = <2>;
> >> +            bias-pull-down;
> >> +    };
> >> +
> >> +    te_suspend: te-suspend-state {
> >> +            pins = "gpio86";
> >> +            function = "mdp_vsync";
> >> +            drive-strength = <2>;
> >> +            bias-pull-down;
> >> +    };
> >
> > What is the difference between these two?
>
> TE pin needs to be pulled down for both active and suspend states. There
> is no difference.

So why do you need two different states for it?





-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry