Re: [PATCH v6 5/8] dt-bindings: gpu: img,powervr-rogue: Add TH1520 GPU compatible

[Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@samsung.com>]

On 6/25/25 15:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/06/2025 14:45, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/24/25 15:53, Matt Coster wrote:
>>> On 23/06/2025 12:42, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>>>> Update the img,powervr-rogue.yaml to include the T-HEAD TH1520 SoC's
>>>> specific GPU compatible string.
>>>>
>>>> The thead,th1520-gpu compatible, along with its full chain
>>>> img,img-bxm-4-64, and img,img-rogue, is added to the
>>>> list of recognized GPU types.
>>>>
>>>> The power-domains property requirement for img,img-bxm-4-64 is also
>>>> ensured by adding it to the relevant allOf condition.
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@samsung.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr-rogue.yaml | 9 ++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr-rogue.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr-rogue.yaml
>>>> index 4450e2e73b3ccf74d29f0e31e2e6687d7cbe5d65..9b241a0c1f5941dc58a1e23970f6d3773d427c22 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr-rogue.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr-rogue.yaml
>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,11 @@ properties:
>>>>            # work with newer dts.
>>>>            - const: img,img-axe
>>>>            - const: img,img-rogue
>>>> +      - items:
>>>> +          - enum:
>>>> +              - thead,th1520-gpu
>>>> +          - const: img,img-bxm-4-64
>>>> +          - const: img,img-rogue
>>>>        - items:
>>>>            - enum:
>>>>                - ti,j721s2-gpu
>>>> @@ -93,7 +98,9 @@ allOf:
>>>>        properties:
>>>>          compatible:
>>>>            contains:
>>>> -            const: img,img-axe-1-16m
>>>> +            enum:
>>>> +              - img,img-axe-1-16m
>>>> +              - img,img-bxm-4-64
>>>
>>> This isn't right – BXM-4-64 has two power domains like BXS-4-64. I don't
>>> really know what the right way to handle that in devicetree is given the
>>> TH1520 appears to expose only a top-level domain for the entire GPU, but
>>> there are definitely two separate domains underneath that as far as the
>>> GPU is concerned (see the attached snippet from integration guide).
>>>
>>> Since power nodes are ref-counted anyway, do we just use the same node
>>> for both domains and let the driver up/down-count it twice?
>>
>> Hi Matt,
>>
>> Thanks for the very helpful insight. That's a great point, it seems the
>> SoC's design presents a tricky case for the bindings.
>>
>> I see what you mean about potentially using the same power domain node
>> twice. My only hesitation is that it might be a bit unclear for someone
>> reading the devicetree later. Perhaps another option could be to relax
>> the constraint for this compatible?
>>
>> Krzysztof, we'd be grateful for your thoughts on how to best model this
>> situation.
> 
> 
> It's your hardware, you should tell us, not me. I don't know how many
> power domains you have there, but for sure it is not one AND two domains
> the same time. It is either one or two, because power domains are not
> the same as regulator supplies.

Hi Krzysztof, Matt,

The img,bxm-4-64 GPU IP itself is designed with two separate power
domains. The TH1520 SoC, which integrates this GPU, wires both of these
to a single OS controllable power gate (controlled via mailbox and E902
co-processor).

This means a devicetree for the TH1520 can only ever provide one power
domain for the GPU. However, a generic binding for img,bxm-4-64 should
account for a future SoC that might implement both power domains.

That's why I proposed to relax the constraints on the img,bmx-4-64 GPU.

This makes the binding accurately represent the GPU's full capabilities
while remaining compatible with SoCs like the TH1520 that have a limited
implementation.

Does this seem like the correct and robust approach to you?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

Best regards,
-- 
Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@samsung.com>

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