Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
@@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
};
};
+ qfprom: efuse@221c8000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
+ reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+ };
+
nsp_noc: interconnect@320c0000 {
compatible = "qcom,sm8450-nsp-noc";
reg = <0 0x320c0000 0 0x10000>;
--
2.7.4
On 3/6/24 13:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> @@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
> };
> };
>
> + qfprom: efuse@221c8000 {
> + compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
> + reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
Is is really only 0x1000-long? Also, is the base you put
here the ECC-corrected part (if that still exists)?
Konrad
Sorry for the late reply, was on vacation.
On 3/6/2024 9:24 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 3/6/24 13:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>> index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>> @@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
>> };
>> };
>> + qfprom: efuse@221c8000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
>> + reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
>
> Is is really only 0x1000-long? Also, is the base you put
> here the ECC-corrected part (if that still exists)?
No, its not.
Entire fuse space is this.
0x221C0000-0x221Cbfff
ECC corrected range is this 0x221C2000-0x221C3fff and High level OS
does have a access to ECC range however, they are not recommended for
SW usage.
Above mentioned SW range(4) in the patch is one and only accessible
range available out of 0-7 SW ranges(0x221C4000-0x221Cbfff with each
size 0x1000) and does not have ECC fuses.
All the downstream use cases are getting fulfilled with this.
-Mukesh
>
> Konrad
On 14.03.2024 17:43, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, was on vacation.
>
> On 3/6/2024 9:24 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/6/24 13:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>>> Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>>> index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
>>> @@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
>>> };
>>> };
>>> + qfprom: efuse@221c8000 {
>>> + compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
>>> + reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
>>
>> Is is really only 0x1000-long? Also, is the base you put
>> here the ECC-corrected part (if that still exists)?
>
> No, its not.
>
> Entire fuse space is this.
> 0x221C0000-0x221Cbfff
>
> ECC corrected range is this 0x221C2000-0x221C3fff and High level OS
> does have a access to ECC range however, they are not recommended for
> SW usage.
Are you sure? Bjorn always insisted to use the corrected bit.
The ancient APQ8016 TRM also mentions this:
QFPROM Corrected Region - [...] This region is intended for
functional use of the QFPROM stored data by software.
>
> Above mentioned SW range(4) in the patch is one and only accessible range available out of 0-7 SW ranges(0x221C4000-0x221Cbfff with each
> size 0x1000) and does not have ECC fuses.
>
> All the downstream use cases are getting fulfilled with this.
Right, and I don't quite get why there's an corrected region if
it sits unused.
Konrad
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 10:13:59PM +0530, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, was on vacation.
>
> On 3/6/2024 9:24 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/6/24 13:26, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
> > > Add the qfprom node for sm8450 SoC.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mukesh Ojha <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > ? arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> > > ? 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > index b86be34a912b..02089a388d03 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi
> > > @@ -4575,6 +4575,13 @@
> > > ????????????? };
> > > ????????? };
> > > +??????? qfprom: efuse@221c8000 {
> > > +??????????? compatible = "qcom,sm8450-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
> > > +??????????? reg = <0 0x221c8000 0 0x1000>;
> >
> > Is is really only 0x1000-long? Also, is the base you put
> > here the ECC-corrected part (if that still exists)?
>
> No, its not.
>
> Entire fuse space is this.
> 0x221C0000-0x221Cbfff
>
> ECC corrected range is this 0x221C2000-0x221C3fff and High level OS
That's 0x2000. Does this then also imply that the ECC-corrected values
are no longer mapped 1:1 with non-corrected, or why do they differ in
size?
> does have a access to ECC range however, they are not recommended for
> SW usage.
>
> Above mentioned SW range(4) in the patch is one and only accessible range
> available out of 0-7 SW ranges(0x221C4000-0x221Cbfff with each
> size 0x1000) and does not have ECC fuses.
>
So you're saying that in contrast to other platforms, the 4th software
range, dedicated for HLOS, does not have a matching ECC-corrected
shadow? If that's the case, then "not recommended for SW usage" sounds
wrong.
> All the downstream use cases are getting fulfilled with this.
>
You only need ECC if you're unlucky...
Regards,
Bjorn