Re: [PATCH 0/4] Retrieve information about DDR from SMEM

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 4/14/25 2:28 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 12:52:32PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 4/11/25 12:50 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 12:03:03PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/25 11:57 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 at 12:49, Konrad Dybcio
>>>>> <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/9/25 5:49 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/9/25 5:44 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/04/2025 17:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>>>> SMEM allows the OS to retrieve information about the DDR memory.
>>>>>>>>> Among that information, is a semi-magic value called 'HBB', or Highest
>>>>>>>>> Bank address Bit, which multimedia drivers (for hardware like Adreno
>>>>>>>>> and MDSS) must retrieve in order to program the IP blocks correctly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This series introduces an API to retrieve that value, uses it in the
>>>>>>>>> aforementioned programming sequences and exposes available DDR
>>>>>>>>> frequencies in debugfs (to e.g. pass to aoss_qmp debugfs). More
>>>>>>>>> information can be exposed in the future, as needed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I know that for some platforms HBB differs between GPU and DPU (as it's being programmed currently). Is there a way to check, which values are we going to program:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - SM6115, SM6350, SM6375 (13 vs 14)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SM6350 has INFO_V3
>>>>>> SM6375 has INFO_V3_WITH_14_FREQS
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not completely sure what you mean here. I pointed out that these
>>>>> platforms disagreed upon the HBB value between the DPU/msm_mdss.c and
>>>>> a6xx_gpu.c.
>>>>> In some cases (a610/SM6115 and a619/SM6350) that was intentional to
>>>>> fix screen corruption issues. I don't remember if it was the case for
>>>>> QCM2290 or not.
>>>>
>>>> As I said below, I couldn't get a good answer yet, as the magic value
>>>> is not provided explicitly and I'll hopefully be able to derive it from
>>>> the available data
>>>
>>> I see...
>>> Is this data even supposed to be poked into? The foo_WITH_bar types
>>> doesn't sound like a very stable API.
>>
>> Yeah, it was designed with both the producer and consumer being part
>> of a single codebase, always having the data structures in sync..
> 
> I feel somewhat worried about parsing those structures then. But... the
> only viable alternative is to have an in-kernel list of possible
> platform configurations and parse the /memory@foo/ddr_device_type
> property.

Well, this is where that property's value comes from..

Konrad