Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add GPU OPP voltage ranges to RK356x SoC dtsi

From: Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
To: Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>
Cc: linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, heiko@sntech.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonas Karlman <jonas@kwiboo.se>,
	Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add GPU OPP voltage ranges to RK356x SoC dtsi
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 17:43:05 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2573506.7YG5XaKc65@bagend> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b8951ac4e29184fa35919c6ab85b8f87@manjaro.org>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

Hi Dragan,

On Sunday, 30 June 2024 14:04:50 CEST Dragan Simic wrote:
> > I also expected that (for v1) there would be a similar construct as was
> > recently added for rk3588. But I should interpret Heiko's comments as
> > that strategy should not be applied to rk356x?
> 
> The trouble with applying the same strategy, ...

One of the reasons I like/hoped for it is that I'm a 'sucker' for consistency.

> ... the need for voltage ranges depends on one of the board features,
> i.e. the GPU and NPU voltage regulators.  As such, it still has to
> affect the RK356x SoC dtsi, which may warrant separate
> rk356x-gpu-range.dtsi, for example, but the troubles would arise ...

... but it's probably better if I (generally) abstain from taking part
in the discussion about the correct/desired implementation as I don't
understand the material in enough detail to meaningfully contribute.

> That's why the v1 went with a macro instead.

... which didn't seem to help with my consistency wish ;-)
(AFAIC there's no need to discuss this further (publicly))

> > When we/upstream adds npu support, I think we should also follow
> > downstream's OPP values, unless we have a very good reason to
> > deviate from that.
> 
> That would make sense, especially because we haven't had the NPU
> supported before in the mainline.

I first wondered why you hadn't *updated* the npu OPP values ... 
to later find out they haven't been specified at all in 'upstream'.

Cheers,
  Diederik

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 170 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
Linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip