Hi, On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 12:15:47 +0000 Liviu Dudau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 09:30:10PM +0300, Onur Özkan wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:51:34 +0100 > > Boris Brezillon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 13:13:31 +0000 > > > Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 01:46:01PM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > > > Mark Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The panthor driver is buggy here and should be fixed, the > > > > > > driver should treat the supply as mandatory and let the system > > > > > > integration work out how it's actually made available. > > > > > > > > > > Trying to open code this just breaks the error handling. > > > > > > > > > Maybe, but the thing is, the DT bindings have been accepted > > > > > already, and it's not something we can easily change. What we can > > > > > do is make this sram-supply mandatory for new compatibles, but we > > > > > can't force it on older/existing SoCs without breaking > > > > > backward-DT compat. > > > > > > > > In practice you can because we do sub in a dummy regulator for > > > > missing supplies, it produces a warning but works fine. If we > > > > didn't do this it'd be basically impossible to add regulator > > > > support to anything at any point after the original merge which is > > > > clearly not reasonable. > > > > > > Okay, I guess we need to fix panthor then... > > > > > > > That + updating the log to something like "sram-supply is missing in > > the DT" would be quite better I think. It would make the issue more > > obvious and convey that the DT file is expected to configure that field > > explicitly. With the current log message, not many people will > > understand the problem at a glance. > > > > As for the bug I described in this patch, we can proceed with the > > alternative solution (updating the DT file) that I mentioned in the > > Zulip thread (the link is included in the patch). Which is this simple > > diff: > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-orangepi-5.dtsi > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-orangepi-5.dtsi > > index dafad29f9854..a30339fd2c10 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-orangepi-5.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s-orangepi-5.dtsi > > @@ -177,6 +177,7 @@ &gmac1_rgmii_clk > > > > &gpu { > > mali-supply = <&vdd_gpu_s0>; > > + sram-supply = <&vdd_gpu_mem_s0>; > > status = "okay"; > > }; > > > > @@ -537,7 +538,7 @@ rk806_dvs3_null: dvs3-null-pins { > > }; > > > > regulators { > > - vdd_gpu_s0: dcdc-reg1 { > > + vdd_gpu_s0: vdd_gpu_mem_s0: dcdc-reg1 { > > You don't need to define a new label, using the same supply for mali-supply > and > sram-supply should be fine. > > > regulator-name = "vdd_gpu_s0"; > > regulator-boot-on; > > regulator-min-microvolt = <550000>; > > > > Note that this only fixes the issue for the Orange Pi 5. If we want > > to go further, the same approach should be applied to many other boards > > as well. I can generate a list of the DT files (using a simple Python > > script) that need this update over the weekend. > > Yes, please, but bias the script towards using the same regulator as > mali-supply. > > > > > If we want to go even further and fix all DT files to properly include > > sram-supply we could also enforce that DT files do not omit sram-supply > > in the future. I am not sure this is strictly necessary but it also > > doesn't seem consistent to leave things as they are. Right now, some DT > > files include sram-supply even when there is no separate SRAM rail, > > while others do not. As a result, some boards will continue to print > > that annoying log message. > > > > It's not very clear which approach is best. > > I'm in favor of the proposal here, where we make sram-supply mandatory for > non-"mt8196-mali" > SoCs and we patch the DTs to add the sram-supply for those. Works for me. Thanks for chiming in Liviu. Regards, Boris
