Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Add DisplayPort device nodes

[Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>]

On 08/12/2023 04:38, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 05:37:19PM +0100, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
> [..]
>> +
>> +			mdss_dp0: displayport-controller@af54000 {
>> +				compatible = "qcom,sm8650-dp";
>> +				reg = <0 0xaf54000 0 0x200>,
>> +				      <0 0xaf54200 0 0x200>,
>> +				      <0 0xaf55000 0 0xc00>,
>> +				      <0 0xaf56000 0 0x400>,
>> +				      <0 0xaf57000 0 0x400>;
>> +
>> +				interrupts-extended = <&mdss 12>;
>> +
>> +				clocks = <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_AHB_CLK>,
>> +					 <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_DPTX0_AUX_CLK>,
>> +					 <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_DPTX0_LINK_CLK>,
>> +					 <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_DPTX0_LINK_INTF_CLK>,
>> +					 <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_DPTX0_PIXEL0_CLK>;
>> +				clock-names = "core_iface",
>> +					      "core_aux",
>> +					      "ctrl_link",
>> +					      "ctrl_link_iface",
>> +					      "stream_pixel";
>> +
>> +				assigned-clocks = <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_DPTX0_LINK_CLK_SRC>,
>> +						  <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_DPTX0_PIXEL0_CLK_SRC>;
>> +				assigned-clock-parents = <&usb_dp_qmpphy QMP_USB43DP_DP_LINK_CLK>,
>> +							 <&usb_dp_qmpphy QMP_USB43DP_DP_VCO_DIV_CLK>;
>> +
>> +				operating-points-v2 = <&dp_opp_table>;
>> +
>> +				power-domains = <&rpmhpd RPMHPD_MX>;
> 
> Are you sure the DP TX block sits in MX? I'd expect this to be
> RPMHPD_MMCX, and then the PHY partially in MX...

Hmm, yeah probably, will switch to MMCX

> 
>> +
>> +				phys = <&usb_dp_qmpphy QMP_USB43DP_DP_PHY>;
>> +				phy-names = "dp";
>> +
>> +				#sound-dai-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> +				status = "disabled";
>> +
>> +				ports {
>> +					#address-cells = <1>;
>> +					#size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> +					port@0 {
>> +						reg = <0>;
>> +
>> +						mdss_dp0_in: endpoint {
>> +							remote-endpoint = <&dpu_intf0_out>;
>> +						};
>> +					};
>> +
>> +					port@1 {
>> +						reg = <1>;
>> +
>> +						mdss_dp0_out: endpoint {
>> +						};
>> +					};
>> +				};
>> +
>> +				dp_opp_table: opp-table {
> 
> Is there any reason why we keep sorting 'o' after 'p' in these nodes?

No, seems it's a copy-paste issue, will fix

Thanks,
Neil

> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn