Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Retrieve information about DDR from SMEM

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 1/9/26 10:03 PM, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 3:41 PM Rob Clark <rob.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 11:11 AM Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 9:22 AM Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> SMEM allows the OS to retrieve information about the DDR memory.
>>>> Among that information, is a semi-magic value called 'HBB', or Highest
>>>> Bank address Bit, which multimedia drivers (for hardware like Adreno
>>>> and MDSS) must retrieve in order to program the IP blocks correctly.
>>>>
>>>> This series introduces an API to retrieve that value, uses it in the
>>>> aforementioned programming sequences and exposes available DDR
>>>> frequencies in debugfs (to e.g. pass to aoss_qmp debugfs). More
>>>> information can be exposed in the future, as needed.
>>>>
>>>> Patch 3 should really be merged after 1&2
>>>
>>> No. The HBB value currently returned by the bootloader is *not* always
>>> the same as what we use currently, because some SoCs (like SM8250)
>>> with the same DT ship with multiple different DRAM configurations and
>>> we've been using a sub-optimal value the whole time. After all, that's
>>> the whole point of using the bootloader value. But patches 1&2 will
>>> only make the DPU use the bootloader value for HBB, not the GPU. So on
>>> one of the affected SoCs, it will introduce a mismatch. You can't
>>> change anything until the GPU side uses the new ubwc config as its
>>> source of truth.
>>
>> Hmm, how is this even working today if DPU is using HBB from the
>> global table but GPU is not?  Are we just getting lucky with
>> compositors that don't know about modifiers and end up scanning out
>> linear?
> 
> It works out as well as it's always worked out, i.e. we try to make
> GPU and DPU config match and pray that we didn't mess it up. At least
> now we'll get a warning when they don't match.
> 
>>
>> We do log warnings when the global ubwc config does not match the
>> "fixed up" config.. google search for those msgs doesn't seem to turn
>> up anything other than the patch which introduced them.  Idk if that
>> is conclusive in any way, but I hope that means we could just delete
>> the fixup code on the GPU side.  I suppose we could add:
>>
>>        *cfg = *common_cfg;
>>
>> after the warning as a first step.  That would maybe get some bug
>> reports along with enough details in dmesg?
> 
> Yes, the plan was always to delete the fixup code in the GPU config.
> And even that first step would be enough to prevent regressions when
> switching to the bootloader HBB value.
> 
> There is a problem in that ubwc_swizzle isn't as well tested. Older
> parts supporting UBWC 1.0-3.0 partially or entirely ignore
> ubwc_swizzle, because it wasn't configurable back then, but we rely on
> it being set correctly in Mesa for VK_EXT_host_image_copy and sparse
> textures. So if ubwc_swizzle is incorrect you probably wouldn't
> notice, until you hit the HIC codepath in zink or some game using
> sparse textures. I think we fixed up all the cases where it was
> incorrectly set to 0x1 instead of 0x7, but it would be worth it to
> check again.

Just to double-check, is your expectation to just double-check the kernel
settings, or would that require some intervention on the mesa side too?

Konrad