On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 2:44 AM Akhil P Oommen akhilpo@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 2/18/2021 9:41 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 4:28 AM Akhil P Oommen akhilpo@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 2/18/2021 2:05 AM, Jonathan Marek wrote:
On 2/17/21 3:18 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:08 AM Jordan Crouse jcrouse@codeaurora.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 07:14:16PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote: > On 2/17/2021 8:36 AM, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 12:10 PM Jonathan Marek jonathan@marek.ca >> wrote: >>> >>> Ignore nvmem_cell_get() EOPNOTSUPP error in the same way as a >>> ENOENT error, >>> to fix the case where the kernel was compiled without CONFIG_NVMEM. >>> >>> Fixes: fe7952c629da ("drm/msm: Add speed-bin support to a618 gpu") >>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Marek jonathan@marek.ca >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 6 +++--- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c >>> index ba8e9d3cf0fe..7fe5d97606aa 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c >>> @@ -1356,10 +1356,10 @@ static int a6xx_set_supported_hw(struct >>> device *dev, struct a6xx_gpu *a6xx_gpu, >>> >>> cell = nvmem_cell_get(dev, "speed_bin"); >>> /* >>> - * -ENOENT means that the platform doesn't support >>> speedbin which is >>> - * fine >>> + * -ENOENT means no speed bin in device tree, >>> + * -EOPNOTSUPP means kernel was built without CONFIG_NVMEM >> >> very minor nit, it would be nice to at least preserve the gist of the >> "which is fine" (ie. some variation of "this is an optional thing and >> things won't catch fire without it" ;-)) >> >> (which is, I believe, is true, hopefully Akhil could confirm.. if not >> we should have a harder dependency on CONFIG_NVMEM..) > IIRC, if the gpu opp table in the DT uses the 'opp-supported-hw' > property, > we will see some error during boot up if we don't call > dev_pm_opp_set_supported_hw(). So calling "nvmem_cell_get(dev, > "speed_bin")" > is a way to test this. > > If there is no other harm, we can put a hard dependency on > CONFIG_NVMEM.
I'm not sure if we want to go this far given the squishiness about module dependencies. As far as I know we are the only driver that uses this seriously on QCOM SoCs and this is only needed for certain targets. I don't know if we want to force every target to build NVMEM and QFPROM on our behalf. But maybe I'm just saying that because Kconfig dependencies tend to break my brain (and then Arnd has to send a patch to fix it).
Hmm, good point.. looks like CONFIG_NVMEM itself doesn't have any other dependencies, so I suppose it wouldn't be the end of the world to select that.. but I guess we don't want to require QFPROM
I guess at the end of the day, what is the failure mode if you have a speed-bin device, but your kernel config misses QFPROM (and possibly NVMEM)? If the result is just not having the highest clk rate(s)
Atleast on sc7180's gpu, using an unsupported FMAX breaks gmu. It won't be very obvious what went wrong when this happens!
Ugg, ok..
I suppose we could select NVMEM, but not QFPROM, and then the case where QFPROM is not enabled on platforms that have the speed-bin field in DT will fail gracefully and all other platforms would continue on happily?
BR, -R
Sounds good to me.
You probably should do a quick test with NVMEM enabled but QFPROM disabled to confirm my theory, but I *think* that should work
BR, -R