Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: dts: qcom: msm8974: correct qfprom node size

[Luca Weiss]

On Sonntag, 6. August 2023 12:47:51 CEST Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
> 
> On Montag, 31. Juli 2023 23:45:21 CEST Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 08:20:41PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > On 15.06.2023 20:17, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > > From: Craig Tatlor <ctatlor97@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > The qfprom actually has size 0x3000, so adjust the reg.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that the non-ECC-corrected qfprom can be found at 0xfc4b8000
> > > > (-0x4000). The current reg points to the ECC-corrected qfprom block
> > > > which should have equivalent values at all offsets compared to the
> > > > non-corrected version.
> > > > 
> > > > [luca@xxxxxxxxx: extract to standalone patch and adjust for review
> > > > comments]
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: c59ffb519357 ("arm: dts: msm8974: Add thermal zones, tsens and
> > > > qfprom nodes") Signed-off-by: Craig Tatlor <ctatlor97@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > Not sure of the actual size of the region, maybe Bjorn can help..
> > > 
> > > Downstream 3.10 suggests 0x60F0, 0x20F0 after adjusting for the ECC
> > > offset
> > 
> > There is indeed 0x3000 bytes until the next region, but afaict the
> > corrected ECC values only cover the first 0x800 bytes thereof.
> > 
> > Can you please let me know if this patch fixes a problem, or just
> > makes the numbers look better?
> 
> Initially this patch came from a different direction, to make space to use
> the PVS bits for cpufreq. Since Konrad said in earlier revisions that I
> should always use the +0x4000 space for the ECC-corrected variant I've
> switched to that.
> 
> If you think it's not useful to have the qfprom size reflect the actual
> size, we can also drop this patch since I don't think it's actually
> necessary for anything that I have lying around in some branches.
> 
> I think I've just sent the current patch to make sure the hardware
> description (dts) is as accurate as possible, but of course since any info
> on Qualcomm is very restricted it could also be a bit wrong.

Hi Bjorn,

this patch is still lying in my inbox. Do you think it's correct or incorrect 
- so should we drop it?

Regards
Luca

> 
> Regards
> Luca
> 
> > Regards,
> > Bjorn
> > 
> > > Konrad
> > > 
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Keep base offset but expand reg from 0x1000 to 0x3000 (Konrad)
> > > > - Link to v1:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230130-msm8974-qfprom-v1-1-975aa0e5e083@z3
> > > > n
> > > > tu.xyz ---
> > > > 
> > > >  arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
> > > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi index 7ed0d925a4e9..3156fe25967f
> > > > 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi
> > > > @@ -1194,7 +1194,7 @@ restart@fc4ab000 {
> > > > 
> > > >  		qfprom: qfprom@fc4bc000 {
> > > >  		
> > > >  			compatible = "qcom,msm8974-qfprom",
> 
> "qcom,qfprom";
> 
> > > > -			reg = <0xfc4bc000 0x1000>;
> > > > +			reg = <0xfc4bc000 0x3000>;
> > > > 
> > > >  			#address-cells = <1>;
> > > >  			#size-cells = <1>;
> > > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > base-commit: 858fd168a95c5b9669aac8db6c14a9aeab446375
> > > > change-id: 20230130-msm8974-qfprom-619c0e8f26eb
> > > > 
> > > > Best regards,