Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add QCM2290 / scuba #19

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jan 25, 2024
Merged

Add QCM2290 / scuba #19

merged 5 commits into from
Jan 25, 2024

Conversation

konradybcio
Copy link
Member

Also applies to QRB2210 / RB1

qcm2290.c Outdated
{ "gpu_cc_gx_gfx3d_clk", &gcc, 0xe3, &gpu_cc, 0xb },
{ "gpu_cc_sleep_clk", &gcc, 0xe3, &gpu_cc, 0x16 },

{ "mccc_clk", &gcc, 0x9b, &mc_cc, 0x220 },
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here you do have a valid GCC mux value to write... #18 (comment)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

in short, it's not exactly necessary

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But the value is written to a register... should we skip that write entirely or does it simply not blow up on a bogus value?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The value is masked out by the mux masks. 0x9b and 0x220 look correct. So this part looks good.

@andersson could you please merge this?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The values do look correct (in the same ballpark as the others), I'm just complaining reminding about #18 (comment) where it was decided to write a value of 0xfeedbeef & 0x1fff to GCC's mux_reg at 0x62024.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hm yeah that seems a bit excessive

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have pushed #24 , it should
make MCCC declarations reflect reality by not requiring dummy &gcc or
NULL entries.

@lumag
Copy link
Collaborator

lumag commented Jun 15, 2023

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov [email protected]

@konradybcio
Copy link
Member Author

As a penalty for not merging this for a long time, more patches! :P

@lumag
Copy link
Collaborator

lumag commented Nov 7, 2023

@konradybcio please rebase on top of the current trunk. Thank you.

@konradybcio
Copy link
Member Author

@lumag rebased, compiletested only, added a bugfix

@TravMurav could you please confirm 7180 still works?

Also applies to QRB2210 / RB1

Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
oops!

Fixes: 9db71d4 ("debugcc: switch to meson")
Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
@lumag lumag merged commit dd6e308 into linux-msm:master Jan 25, 2024
12 checks passed
@TravMurav
Copy link

Sorry, didn't get to testing it earlier, on sc7180 it segfaults trying to call a non-assigned parent measure function afaiu

Reading symbols from ./debugcc...
(gdb) r
Starting program: /home/travler/tmp/code/debugcc/build/debugcc -p sc7180 -a

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
(gdb) bt
#0  0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
#1  0x0000aaaaaaad36cc in measure_leaf (clk=0xaaaaaab08a98 <sc7180_clocks>, mux=0xaaaaaab08a38 <cpu_cc>) at ../debugcc.c:162
#2  0x0000aaaaaaad3794 in measure (clk=0xaaaaaab08a98 <sc7180_clocks>) at ../debugcc.c:183
#3  0x0000aaaaaaad3ffc in main (argc=4, argv=0xfffffffffa98) at ../debugcc.c:394
(gdb) 

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants