Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: Add GPU support to X1P42100 SoC
From: Akhil P Oommen <hidden>
Date: 2025-06-08 20:19:19
Also in:
dri-devel, linux-arm-msm, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 6/8/2025 8:52 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 08/06/2025 18:20, Rob Clark wrote:quoted
On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 8:09 AM Dmitry Baryshkov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sun, Jun 08, 2025 at 07:10:11AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:quoted
On Sat, Jun 7, 2025 at 1:17 PM Dmitry Baryshkov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 07:45:01PM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote:quoted
X1P42100 SoC has a new GPU called Adreno X1-45 which is a smaller version of Adreno X1-85 GPU. Describe this new GPU and also add the secure gpu firmware path that should used for X1P42100 CRD. Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@oss.qualcomm.com> --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi | 7 ++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100-crd.dts | 4 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100.dtsi | 121 ++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++- 3 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi index a8eb4c5fe99fe6dd49af200a738b6476d87279b2..558d7d387d7710770244fcc901f461384dd9b0d4 100644--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1e80100.dtsi@@ -8245,6 +8245,13 @@ sbsa_watchdog: watchdog@1c840000 {interrupts = <GIC_SPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; }; + qfprom: efuse@221c8000 { + compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom"; + reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>; + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <1>; + }; + pmu@24091000 { compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-llcc-bwmon", "qcom,sc7280-llcc-bwmon"; reg = <0 0x24091000 0 0x1000>;diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100-crd.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100-crd.dts index cf07860a63e97c388909fb5721ae7b9729b6c586..cf999c2cf8d4e0af83078253fd39ece3a0c26a49 100644--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100-crd.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100-crd.dts@@ -15,3 +15,7 @@ / {model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. X1P42100 CRD"; compatible = "qcom,x1p42100-crd", "qcom,x1p42100"; }; + +&gpu_zap_shader { + firmware-name = "qcom/x1p42100/gen71500_zap.mbn"; +};diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100.dtsi index 27f479010bc330eb6445269a1c46bf78ec6f1bd4..5ed461ed5cca271d43647888aa6eacac3de2ac9d 100644--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/x1p42100.dtsi@@ -17,15 +17,134 @@/delete-node/ &cpu_pd9; /delete-node/ &cpu_pd10; /delete-node/ &cpu_pd11; +/delete-node/ &gpu_opp_table; /delete-node/ &pcie3_phy; &gcc { compatible = "qcom,x1p42100-gcc", "qcom,x1e80100-gcc"; }; -/* The GPU is physically different and will be brought up later */ +&gmu { + /delete-property/ compatible; + compatible = "qcom,adreno-gmu-x145.0", "qcom,adreno-gmu"; +}; + +&qfprom { + gpu_speed_bin: gpu_speed_bin@119 { + reg = <0x119 0x2>; + bits = <7 9>; + }; +}; + &gpu { /delete-property/ compatible;I think, you can drop this line.
I wasn't sure about this and I thought it was harmless to delete it. Anyway, I will remove the "delete" from both GPU and GMU nodes.
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
quoted
+ + compatible = "qcom,adreno-43030c00", "qcom,adreno"; + + nvmem-cells = <&gpu_speed_bin>; + nvmem-cell-names = "speed_bin"; + + gpu_opp_table: opp-table { + compatible = "operating-points-v2-adreno", "operating-points-v2"; + + opp-1400000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1400000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L4>; + opp-peak-kBps = <16500000>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0xa8295ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0x3>; + }; + + opp-1250000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1250000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L3>; + opp-peak-kBps = <16500000>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0x882a5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0x7>; + }; + + opp-1107000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1107000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO_L1>; + opp-peak-kBps = <16500000>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0x882a5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0xf>; + }; + + opp-1014000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1014000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO>; + opp-peak-kBps = <14398438>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0xa82a5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0xf>; + }; + + opp-940000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <940000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_NOM_L1>; + opp-peak-kBps = <14398438>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0xa82a5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0xf>; + }; + + opp-825000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <825000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_NOM>; + opp-peak-kBps = <12449219>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0x882b5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0xf>; + }; + + opp-720000000 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <720000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_SVS_L2>; + opp-peak-kBps = <10687500>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0xa82c5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0xf>; + }; + + opp-666000000-0 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <666000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_SVS_L1>; + opp-peak-kBps = <8171875>; + qcom,opp-acd-level = <0xa82d5ffd>; + opp-supported-hw = <0xf>; + }; + + /* Only applicable for SKUs which has 666Mhz as Fmax */ + opp-666000000-1 { + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <666000000>; + opp-level = <RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_SVS_L1>; + opp-peak-kBps = <16500000>;This looks odd, why is it so high?You want max bandwidth on max oppYes, but can it actually sustain / provide this BW?I'd have to trust Akhil on that one, but I have no reason to believe otherwise. Just pointing out we've done analogous things elsewhere (for ex, cpu bw for sc7180-lite.dtsi)
Window's GPU KMD seems to vote Max bandwidth for this SKU, so I think this is fine. Our GPUs from last few generations can easily saturate DDR with the right usecase. -Akhil
Ack. Then I'll wait for v2 with no deleting of compatible lines (a new line here would just replace the existing one).