On SA8295P and SA8540P the GFX rail is powered by a dedicated external
regulator, instead of the rpmh-controlled "gfx.lvl".
Define the "vdd-gfx" as the supply regulator for the GDSC, to cause the
gdsc logic to look for, and control, this external power supply.
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
---
drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c
index 8e147ee294ee..e2b3bc000c71 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c
@@ -399,6 +399,7 @@ static struct gdsc gx_gdsc = {
},
.pwrsts = PWRSTS_OFF_ON,
.flags = CLAMP_IO | RETAIN_FF_ENABLE,
+ .supply = "vdd-gfx",
};
static struct gdsc *gpu_cc_sc8280xp_gdscs[] = {
--
2.25.1
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 01:05:09PM -0800, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On SA8295P and SA8540P the GFX rail is powered by a dedicated external
> regulator, instead of the rpmh-controlled "gfx.lvl".
>
> Define the "vdd-gfx" as the supply regulator for the GDSC, to cause the
> gdsc logic to look for, and control, this external power supply.
>
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c
> index 8e147ee294ee..e2b3bc000c71 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gpucc-sc8280xp.c
> @@ -399,6 +399,7 @@ static struct gdsc gx_gdsc = {
> },
> .pwrsts = PWRSTS_OFF_ON,
> .flags = CLAMP_IO | RETAIN_FF_ENABLE,
> + .supply = "vdd-gfx",
This change now triggers warnings on SC8280XP which does not have this
supply:
gpu_cc-sc8280xp 3d90000.clock-controller: supply vdd-gfx not found, using dummy regulator
I've sent a change to start treating this optional supply as truly
optional here (even if it has not shown up in lore yet):
https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
But why are we still using the same compatible string for sc8280xp and
sa8540p and sa8295p if they differ in such a way?
Shouldn't these structures be different for the two classes of SoCs,
which would avoid such issues and which would allow us to continue to
warn if the supply is missing on a sa8540p derivative platforms where it
appears to be required.
Johan