Re: [PATCH v6 00/12] ARM/MIPS: DTS: add child nodes describing the PVRSGX GPU present in some OMAP SoC and JZ4780 (and many more)

[Maxime Ripard]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 09:10:57AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > Am 22.04.2020 um 08:58 schrieb Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:29:32PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Am 21.04.2020 um 16:15 schrieb Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >>> 
> >>> * Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> [200421 11:22]:
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:57:33AM +0200, Philipp Rossak wrote:
> >>>>> I had a look on genpd and I'm not really sure if that fits.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> It is basically some bit that verify that the clocks should be enabled or
> >>>>> disabled.
> >>>> 
> >>>> No, it can do much more than that. It's a framework to control the SoCs power
> >>>> domains, so clocks might be a part of it, but most of the time it's going to be
> >>>> about powering up a particular device.
> >>> 
> >>> Note that on omaps there are actually SoC module specific registers.
> >> 
> >> Ah, I see. This is of course a difference that the TI glue logic has
> >> its own registers in the same address range as the sgx and this can't
> >> be easily handled by a common sgx driver.
> >> 
> >> This indeed seems to be unique with omap.
> >> 
> >>> And there can be multiple devices within a single target module on
> >>> omaps. So the extra dts node and device is justified there.
> >>> 
> >>> For other SoCs, the SGX clocks are probably best handled directly
> >>> in pvr-drv.c PM runtime functions unless a custom hardware wrapper
> >>> with SoC specific registers exists.
> >> 
> >> That is why we need to evaluate what the better strategy is.
> >> 
> >> So we have
> >> a) omap which has a custom wrapper around the sgx
> >> b) others without, i.e. an empty (or pass-through) wrapper
> >> 
> >> Which one do we make the "standard" and which one the "exception"?
> >> What are good reasons for either one?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I am currently in strong favour of a) being standard because it
> >> makes the pvr-drv.c simpler and really generic (independent of
> >> wrapping into any SoC).
> >> 
> >> This will likely avoid problems if we find more SoC with yet another
> >> scheme how the SGX clocks are wrapped.
> >> 
> >> It also allows to handle different number of clocks (A31 seems to
> >> need 4, Samsung, A83 and JZ4780 one) without changing the sgx bindings
> >> or making big lists of conditionals. This variance would be handled
> >> outside the sgx core bindings and driver.
> > 
> > I disagree. Every other GPU binding and driver is handling that just fine, and
> > the SGX is not special in any case here.
> 
> Can you please better explain this? With example or a description
> or a proposal?

I can't, I don't have any knowledge about this GPU.

> I simply do not have your experience with "every other GPU" as you have.
> And I admit that I can't read from your statement what we should do
> to bring this topic forward.
> 
> So please make a proposal how it should be in your view.

If you need some inspiration, I guess you could look at the mali and vivante
bindings once you have an idea of what the GPU needs across the SoCs it's
integrated in.

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature