Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] drm/msm/adreno: Implement SMEM-based speed bin

[Akhil P Oommen]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 02:40:30PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29.07.2024 2:13 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 16.07.2024 1:56 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 15.07.2024 10:04 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 12:45:29PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >>>> On recent (SM8550+) Snapdragon platforms, the GPU speed bin data is
> >>>> abstracted through SMEM, instead of being directly available in a fuse.
> >>>>
> >>>> Add support for SMEM-based speed binning, which includes getting
> >>>> "feature code" and "product code" from said source and parsing them
> >>>> to form something that lets us match OPPs against.
> >>>>
> >>>> Due to the product code being ignored in the context of Adreno on
> >>>> production parts (as of SM8650), hardcode it to SOCINFO_PC_UNKNOWN.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>>  
> >>>> -	if (adreno_read_speedbin(dev, &speedbin) || !speedbin)
> >>>> +	if (adreno_read_speedbin(adreno_gpu, dev, &speedbin) || !speedbin)
> >>>>  		speedbin = 0xffff;
> >>>> -	adreno_gpu->speedbin = (uint16_t) (0xffff & speedbin);
> >>>> +	adreno_gpu->speedbin = speedbin;
> >>> There are some chipsets which uses both Speedbin and Socinfo data for
> >>> SKU detection [1].
> >> 0_0
> >>
> >>
> >>> We don't need to worry about that logic for now. But
> >>> I am worried about mixing Speedbin and SKU_ID in the UABI with this patch.
> >>> It will be difficult when we have to expose both to userspace.
> >>>
> >>> I think we can use a separate bitfield to expose FCODE/PCODE. Currently,
> >>> the lower 32 bit is reserved for chipid and 33-48 is reserved for speedbin,
> >>> so I think we can use the rest of the 16 bits for SKU_ID. And within that
> >>> 16bits, 12 bits should be sufficient for FCODE and the rest 8 bits
> >>> reserved for future PCODE.
> >> Right, sounds reasonable. Hopefully nothing overflows..
> > +CC Elliot
> > 
> > Would you know whether these sizes ^ are going to be sufficient for
> > the foreseeable future?
> 
> Also Akhil, 12 + 8 > 16.. did you mean 8 bits for both P and FCODE? Or
> 12 for FCODE and 4 for PCODE?

Sorry, "8 bits" was a typo. You are right, 12 bits for Fcode and 4 bits for PCODE.

-Akhil

> 
> Konrad