On 17/02/2025 20:05, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:41:33PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Add support for DSI on Qualcomm SM8750 SoC with notable difference: >> >> DSI PHY PLLs, the parents of pixel and byte clocks, cannot be used as >> parents before DSI PHY is configured and the PLLs are prepared with >> initial rate is set. Therefore assigned-clock-parents are not working >> here and driver is responsible for reparenting clocks with proper >> procedure: see dsi_clk_init_6g_v2_9(). >> >> Part of the change is exactly the same as CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE, however >> CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE won't work here because assigned-clock-parents are >> executed way too early - before DSI PHY is configured. >> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlow...@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> >> SM8750 DSI PHY also needs Dmitry's patch: >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/542000/?series=119177&rev=1 >> (or some other way of correct early setting of the DSI PHY PLL rate) >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.h | 2 + >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c | 25 ++++++++++++ >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.h | 1 + >> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c | 80 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 108 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.h >> index >> 87496db203d6c7582eadcb74e94eb56a219df292..93c028a122f3a59b1632da76472e0a3e781c6ae8 >> 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.h >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi.h >> @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ int msm_dsi_host_init(struct msm_dsi *msm_dsi); >> int msm_dsi_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev); >> int msm_dsi_runtime_resume(struct device *dev); >> int dsi_link_clk_set_rate_6g(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> +int dsi_link_clk_set_rate_6g_v2_9(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> int dsi_link_clk_set_rate_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> int dsi_link_clk_enable_6g(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> int dsi_link_clk_enable_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> @@ -115,6 +116,7 @@ int dsi_dma_base_get_6g(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, >> uint64_t *iova); >> int dsi_dma_base_get_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, uint64_t *iova); >> int dsi_clk_init_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> int dsi_clk_init_6g_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> +int dsi_clk_init_6g_v2_9(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host); >> int dsi_calc_clk_rate_v2(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, bool is_bonded_dsi); >> int dsi_calc_clk_rate_6g(struct msm_dsi_host *msm_host, bool is_bonded_dsi); >> void msm_dsi_host_snapshot(struct msm_disp_state *disp_state, struct >> mipi_dsi_host *host); >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c >> index >> 7754dcec33d06e3d6eb8a9d55e53f24af073adb9..e2a8d6fcc45b6c207a3018ea7c8744fcf34dabd2 >> 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_cfg.c >> @@ -205,6 +205,17 @@ static const struct msm_dsi_config sm8650_dsi_cfg = { >> }, >> }; >> >> +static const struct msm_dsi_config sm8750_dsi_cfg = { > > Can we use sm8650_dsi_cfg instead? What is the difference?
Yeah, I'll changeit. I think I was looking at this even and could not find differences. Best regards, Krzysztof
