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.kozlow...@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszew...@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczyn...@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.
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
>> then:
>> properties:
>> power-domains:
>>
>
>
Best regards,
--
Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczyn...@samsung.com>
