The init resources for MSM8996 are missing power domains, and adding them
makes the resources identical to the MSM8998 ones. Remove slpi_resource_init
and use MSM8998 resources for both chips.
Signed-off-by: Yassine Oudjana <[email protected]>
---
drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 15 ++-------------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
index b921fc26cd04..b1e613187c68 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
@@ -689,17 +689,6 @@ static const struct adsp_data mpss_resource_init = {
.ssctl_id = 0x12,
};
-static const struct adsp_data slpi_resource_init = {
- .crash_reason_smem = 424,
- .firmware_name = "slpi.mdt",
- .pas_id = 12,
- .has_aggre2_clk = true,
- .auto_boot = true,
- .ssr_name = "dsps",
- .sysmon_name = "slpi",
- .ssctl_id = 0x16,
-};
-
static const struct adsp_data sm8150_slpi_resource = {
.crash_reason_smem = 424,
.firmware_name = "slpi.mdt",
@@ -803,8 +792,8 @@ static const struct adsp_data sdx55_mpss_resource = {
static const struct of_device_id adsp_of_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8974-adsp-pil", .data = &adsp_resource_init},
- { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-adsp-pil", .data = &adsp_resource_init},
- { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-slpi-pil", .data = &slpi_resource_init},
+ { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-adsp-pil", .data = &msm8998_adsp_resource},
+ { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-slpi-pil", .data = &msm8998_slpi_resource},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8998-adsp-pas", .data = &msm8998_adsp_resource},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8998-slpi-pas", .data = &msm8998_slpi_resource},
{ .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-adsp-pas", .data = &adsp_resource_init },
--
2.31.1
On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:18:04PM +0000, Yassine Oudjana wrote:
> The init resources for MSM8996 are missing power domains, and adding them
> makes the resources identical to the MSM8998 ones. Remove slpi_resource_init
> and use MSM8998 resources for both chips.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yassine Oudjana <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c | 15 ++-------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> index b921fc26cd04..b1e613187c68 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pas.c
> @@ -689,17 +689,6 @@ static const struct adsp_data mpss_resource_init = {
> .ssctl_id = 0x12,
> };
>
> -static const struct adsp_data slpi_resource_init = {
> - .crash_reason_smem = 424,
> - .firmware_name = "slpi.mdt",
> - .pas_id = 12,
> - .has_aggre2_clk = true,
> - .auto_boot = true,
> - .ssr_name = "dsps",
> - .sysmon_name = "slpi",
> - .ssctl_id = 0x16,
> -};
> -
> static const struct adsp_data sm8150_slpi_resource = {
> .crash_reason_smem = 424,
> .firmware_name = "slpi.mdt",
> @@ -803,8 +792,8 @@ static const struct adsp_data sdx55_mpss_resource = {
>
> static const struct of_device_id adsp_of_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8974-adsp-pil", .data = &adsp_resource_init},
> - { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-adsp-pil", .data = &adsp_resource_init},
> - { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-slpi-pil", .data = &slpi_resource_init},
> + { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-adsp-pil", .data = &msm8998_adsp_resource},
> + { .compatible = "qcom,msm8996-slpi-pil", .data = &msm8998_slpi_resource},
NACK.
I see that the "slpi_resource_init" and "msm8998_{slpi/adsp}_resource" are
completely different, even the firmware name. How can you get it to work?
Thanks,
Mani
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8998-adsp-pas", .data = &msm8998_adsp_resource},
> { .compatible = "qcom,msm8998-slpi-pas", .data = &msm8998_slpi_resource},
> { .compatible = "qcom,qcs404-adsp-pas", .data = &adsp_resource_init },
> --
> 2.31.1
>
>
Hi,
> NACK.
>
> I see that the "slpi_resource_init" and "msm8998_{slpi/adsp}_resource" are
> completely different, even the firmware name. How can you get it to work?
one of us must be looking at some knock-off source code, as they are identical say for the presence or absence of proxy_pd_names, which are required for 8996 and weren't really an exposed thing on old SoCs like 8974.
Konrad
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 06:56:22PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> > NACK.
> >
> > I see that the "slpi_resource_init" and "msm8998_{slpi/adsp}_resource" are
> > completely different, even the firmware name. How can you get it to work?
>
> one of us must be looking at some knock-off source code, as they are identical say for the presence or absence of proxy_pd_names, which are required for 8996 and weren't really an exposed thing on old SoCs like 8974.
>
Actually "msm8998_adsp_resource" is what different from "slpi_resource_init" and
"msm8998_slpi_resource" looks good. So you can just add the proxy votes to
"slpi_resource_init".
Thanks,
Mani
>
> Konrad
>