-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
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
Conversation
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Outdated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 }, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov [email protected] |
As a penalty for not merging this for a long time, more patches! :P |
@konradybcio please rebase on top of the current trunk. Thank you. |
@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]>
whatawurst/android_kernel_sony_msm8998@e71cfc0 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]>
Sorry, didn't get to testing it earlier, on sc7180 it segfaults trying to call a non-assigned parent measure function afaiu
|
Also applies to QRB2210 / RB1