On 10/24/2025 2:58 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 04:33:28AM +0530, Akhil P Oommen wrote: >> On 10/22/2025 12:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 21/10/2025 17:51, Akhil P Oommen wrote: >>>> On 10/19/2025 2:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 17/10/2025 19:08, Akhil P Oommen wrote: >>>>>> RGMU a.k.a Reduced Graphics Management Unit is a small state machine >>>>>> with the sole purpose of providing IFPC (Inter Frame Power Collapse) >>>>>> support. Compared to GMU, it doesn't manage GPU clock, voltage >>>>>> scaling, bw voting or any other functionalities. All it does is detect >>>>>> an idle GPU and toggle the GDSC switch. As it doesn't access DDR space, >>>>>> it doesn't require iommu. >>>>>> >>>>>> So far, only Adreno 612 GPU has an RGMU core. Document RGMU in the GMU's >>>>>> schema. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/gmu.yaml | 98 >>>>>> +++++++++++++++++----- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> @@ -313,13 +360,26 @@ allOf: >>>>>> items: >>>>>> - const: gmu >>>>>> else: >>>>>> - required: >>>>>> - - clocks >>>>>> - - clock-names >>>>>> - - interrupts >>>>>> - - interrupt-names >>>>>> - - iommus >>>>>> - - operating-points-v2 >>>>>> + if: >>>>>> + properties: >>>>>> + compatible: >>>>>> + contains: >>>>>> + const: qcom,adreno-rgmu >>>>>> + then: >>>>>> + required: >>>>>> + - clocks >>>>>> + - clock-names >>>>>> + - interrupts >>>>>> + - interrupt-names >>>>>> + - operating-points-v2 >>>>>> + else: >>>>> >>>>> No. Don't nest multiple ifs. >>>> >>>> I guess we should split this. I will add a 'required' constraint to the >>>> rgmu constraints above. And apply the below 'required' constraint >>>> specifically to 'qcom,adreno-gmu' instead of the 'else' fallback case. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any suggestion. >>> >>> Maybe the binding is getting to complicated and RGMU should have its own. >> >> There is just a single chipset with RGMU and we haven't seen another one >> in the last 8 yrs. So it is very unlikely we will see another one again. >> So I feel it is not worth splitting this file just for RGMU. > > I'd second the suggestion to split the RGMU schema. It's not about the > number of platforms supported by the file. It's about the clarity. I > think it would make the file easier to read.
Alright. If there is a general consensus, we can split out RGMU schema to a new file. -Akhil > >> >> Let me send another revision and let's take a call after that. >
