On 4/11/25 1:37 PM, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>
>
> On 4/11/2025 2:42 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 4/11/25 9:15 AM, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/1/2025 10:03 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/25 9:41 AM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>> Add a node for the videocc found on the SM6350 SoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.we...@fairphone.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> index
>>>>> 42f9d16c2fa6da66a8bb524a33c2687a1e4b40e0..4498d6dfd61a7e30a050a8654d54dae2d06c220c
>>>>> 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -1952,6 +1952,20 @@ usb_1_dwc3_ss_out: endpoint {
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> + videocc: clock-controller@aaf0000 {
>>>>> + compatible = "qcom,sm6350-videocc";
>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0x0aaf0000 0x0 0x10000>;
>>>>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_VIDEO_AHB_CLK>,
>>>>> + <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>,
>>>>> + <&sleep_clk>;
>>>>> + clock-names = "iface",
>>>>> + "bi_tcxo",
>>>>> + "sleep_clk";
>>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>>>>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>>>> + };
>>>>
>>>> You'll probably want to hook up some additional power domains here, see
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250327-videocc-pll-multi-pd-voting-v3-0-895fafd62...@quicinc.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>> On SM6350, videocc doesn't need multiple power domains at HW level, it is
>>> only on CX rail which would be ON
>>> when system is active, hence power-domains are not mandatory here.
>>
>> 6350 doesn't have either MMCX nor a split MX - shouldn't both normal
>> CX and MX be in there?
>>
>
> All clocks & GDSC's of SM6350 videocc are only on CX rail, so it requires
> only CX power domain. But when HLOS
> is active, CX rail will be ON and operate at a level above retention, which
> is sufficient for videocc to operate.
> Hence clock driver don't need to explicitly vote on CX rail.
>
> The same is not true for other rails like MMCX and Split MX(MXC), hence clock
> drivers had to explicitly vote on
> those rails.
I'm worried about MX being undervolted for higher OPPs
Konrad
