Re: [PATCH v2 17/21] drm/msm/a8xx: Add support for Adreno X2-85 GPU

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 11/10/25 5:37 PM, Akhil P Oommen wrote:
> Adreno X2-85 GPU is found in the next generation of Qualcomm's compute
> series chipset called Snapdragon X2 Elite (a.k.a Glymur). It is based
> on the new A8x slice architecture and features up to 4 slices. Due to
> the wider 12 channel DDR support, there is higher DDR bandwidth available
> than previous generation to improve performance.
> 
> Add a new entry in the catalog along with the necessary register
> configurations to enable support for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <akhilpo@oss.qualcomm.com>
> ---

[...]

>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c | 131 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a8xx_gpu.c     |   3 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.h   |   5 ++
>  3 files changed, 139 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> index fa3ae725f389..2e5b0573c212 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c
> @@ -1625,6 +1625,108 @@ static const struct adreno_info a7xx_gpus[] = {
>  };
>  DECLARE_ADRENO_GPULIST(a7xx);
>  
> +static const struct adreno_reglist_pipe x285_nonctxt_regs[] = {

It's certainly not the same silicon, but a830 sets a bunch more regs
here and has a lot more comments in kgsl. Could you check if any of
these settings are required/beneficial?


> +static const u32 x285_protect_regs[] = {
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x00008, 0x039b),

In case anyone asks, there are simply no registers before 0x8<<2

> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x003b4, 0x008b),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00440, 0x001f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x00580, 0x005f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x005e0, 0x011f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x0074a, 0x0005),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x00759, 0x0026),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x00789, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x0078c, 0x0013),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00800, 0x0029),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0082c, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00837, 0x00af),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x008e7, 0x00c9),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x008ec, 0x00c3),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x009b1, 0x0250),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x00ce0, 0x0001),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x00df0, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00df1, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00e01, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x00e03, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x03c00, 0x00c5),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x03cc6, 0x0039),

830 has start=0x03cc6 len=0x1fff but that must be a bug unless a lot of
registers have shifted from there.. I see there's perf counters so perhaps
perfetto-proofing?

> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x03d00, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x08600, 0x01ff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x08e00, 0x00ff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x08f00, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x08f01, 0x01be),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x09600, 0x01ff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x0981a, 0x02e5),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x09e00, 0x01ff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0a600, 0x01ff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0a82e, 0x0000),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0ae00, 0x0006),

830 has len=4 here, with len=6 you can't write to GEN8_SP_NC_MODE_CNTL_2
which I think may be useful for UMD

> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0ae08, 0x0006),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0ae10, 0x00bf),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x0aed0, 0x002f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0af00, 0x027f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0b600, 0x1fff),

This carveout differs slightly vs 830 but I think that's mandated

> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x0dc00, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x0fc00, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x18400, 0x003f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x18440, 0x013f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x18580, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x1b400, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x1f400, 0x0477),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x1f878, 0x0507),

This differs vs a830 but it's kgsl that has a harmless? logic bug:

{ GEN8_CP_PROTECT_REG_GLOBAL + 40, 0x1f400, 0x1f877, 1 },
{ GEN8_CP_PROTECT_REG_GLOBAL + 41, 0x1f878, 0x1ffff, 0 },
{ GEN8_CP_PROTECT_REG_GLOBAL + 42, 0x1f930, 0x1fc59, 1 },

(0x1f930 is overwritten)

> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x1f930, 0x0329),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x1fd80, 0x1fff),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x27800, 0x007f),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_RDONLY(0x27880, 0x0385),
> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x27882, 0x000a),

These 2 seem to have been changed vs 830 for counters (all good)

> +	A6XX_PROTECT_NORDWR(0x27c06, 0x0000),
> +};
> +
> +DECLARE_ADRENO_PROTECT(x285_protect, 64);
> +
>  static const uint32_t a840_pwrup_reglist_regs[] = {
>  	REG_A7XX_SP_HLSQ_TIMEOUT_THRESHOLD_DP,
>  	REG_A7XX_SP_READ_SEL,
> @@ -1809,6 +1911,35 @@ static const struct adreno_reglist a840_gbif[] = {
>  
>  static const struct adreno_info a8xx_gpus[] = {
>  	{
> +		.chip_ids = ADRENO_CHIP_IDS(0x44070041),
> +		.family = ADRENO_8XX_GEN1,
> +		.fw = {
> +			[ADRENO_FW_SQE] = "gen80100_sqe.fw",
> +			[ADRENO_FW_GMU] = "gen80100_gmu.bin",
> +		},
> +		.gmem = 21 * SZ_1M,
> +		.inactive_period = DRM_MSM_INACTIVE_PERIOD,
> +		.quirks = ADRENO_QUIRK_HAS_CACHED_COHERENT |
> +			  ADRENO_QUIRK_HAS_HW_APRIV,

No preemption and IFPC - I supopose the smart thing to do before we
know things are stable

> +		.funcs = &a8xx_gpu_funcs,
> +		.a6xx = &(const struct a6xx_info) {
> +			.protect = &x285_protect,
> +			.nonctxt_reglist = x285_nonctxt_regs,
> +			.gbif_cx = a840_gbif,
> +			.gmu_chipid = 0x8010100,

Is this the chip id for the final revision silicon?

[...]

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a8xx_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a8xx_gpu.c
> index ad140b0d641d..d283d0b55623 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a8xx_gpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a8xx_gpu.c
> @@ -175,6 +175,9 @@ static void a8xx_set_hwcg(struct msm_gpu *gpu, bool state)
>  	struct a6xx_gmu *gmu = &a6xx_gpu->gmu;
>  	u32 val;
>  
> +	if (adreno_is_x285(adreno_gpu))
> +		gpu_write(gpu, REG_A8XX_RBBM_CGC_0_PC, 0x00000702);

kgsl sets this only when turning on hwcg (bool state in this func) and
on a830 family - should we turn this into an A8XX_GEN1 check?

Konrad