From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=5.75.144.95 ARC-Seal: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; t=1793562273; b=eReD996CjNtitjzFtfyqB8evzDipmym5vY9CeS7nqTTYzJgjRO73VCp1XfM4FS3Sv0v+ afsfYN+0CNeakvime+mKCN4iwVn+yG6Fj2tHNnTEw0uyynMtrFDmA3WsMNZdy6e93v17m yq+mqHNHafy/7XYOPMcufuq9oaJ59rYg5X11wfhJLUatq7LSybNQsAhmQrfLAj7vBKMnH rw/crURQkKSpCZkZHPcZAm+w+I8+ggGQOUiG2OVMCLpNcqw+jGLE5IPVUFjKBPRnUGZeA C8D36ptKQSzmUW0rrzHY9TZmRe9ypasc52fTlZiOeeqUlXAzIV3ET+we3EBwCEZq3QA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc20261015; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1793562273; h=DMARC-Filter:DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:MIME-Version:Date:From:To: Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Message-ID:X-Sender:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=vZQyTpU9Icu2HSISAcfZwpsG6IToGvLeX9PW7kPGqag=; b=VpmtoWiMn4AIH/wJa6pYysDxOcLgnEyT0DUv856/DRa4DJbcgMEnugPUoxTbcWKPbMdt 4/XNvDORVbyKj//QCqL3qkQSVuwfga14yEDO4EyOgyygu1UUPCkSUuFtZhmAB8ZUBeJhU leHA+mI6MfoYN27sg4wkuyQGCpW71XYR4ugIlJZ4v1JB1d/BM62sr+vMLmQRhpJZI9gni qAEpXxEEUbCOhE15hi5xlECZOToY5MOZ05/t4RyO4iqKBVtoFK04AY1j2OBF0U0G032eN tefo2M0eA5JbhgD4z/1wfIKWm2w6sWxkm4x+IrVGsXMbiI9yn/7OQ9xrCxPOJqSIOGQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass header.from=mainlining.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org; dkim=pass header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=202507r header.b=MneB7DBc; dkim=pass header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=202507e header.b=U442302s; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=5.75.144.95 Received: from mail.mainlining.org (mail.mainlining.org [5.75.144.95]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2822E606A324; Sun, 1 Nov 2026 19:44:31 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp.subspace.kernel.org 2822E606A324 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mainlining.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=202507r header.b=MneB7DBc; dkim=pass header.d=mainlining.org header.i=@mainlining.org header.a=ed25519-sha256 header.s=202507e header.b=U442302s DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=202507r; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1793562269; bh=vZQyTpU9Icu2HSISAcfZwps G6IToGvLeX9PW7kPGqag=; b=MneB7DBcjOrpLrDeCLkagxtkg0LXEDxeuUwUz23SkC0O2bsCY6 3lNucIelaIZLJWGhd7h7uPVMZiV0A6u4p1E4CeXMka0USUVeY1v0b3sBlJTQoYfXF9PszdcFHCV s9Qv+/O/5ekctZ4DcAbdFxN+fsI3grc5jEuylEW+wF021q+A0zdQ8DcxxHYq1e6inAlrVJ6dWJ6 ZvdrppkJPu8YDmql2LeaErGKar8LxilxQxmFZHzFT3+ihSZD5icplZynm/OLS5d6eShxAqxcIUp dgioMaHRfGydF1Qs7CGTYCXADZnwzHW+R2iqiVeBxrHA7GF82qOBWId96KYFNLrzgxw==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; s=202507e; d=mainlining.org; c=relaxed/relaxed; h=Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date; t=1793562269; bh=vZQyTpU9Icu2HSISAcfZwps G6IToGvLeX9PW7kPGqag=; b=U442302spwE5+eArYoQIsrdcxkr36Dtfm+ZVoG+QSXt9wedX1A jZY7rMGTwtbUmTEKXaV9mvXpXnDb57Z9kOAg==; X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Owner: Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2026 20:44:29 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Barnab=C3=A1s_Cz=C3=A9m=C3=A1n?= To: Amir Hanip Cc: abelvesa@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, konradybcio@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, a39skl@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: Add Xiaomi Poco M3 In-Reply-To: <20261101164930.17976-1-killdeath104@gmail.com> References: <239d46726c0aad84feccc3def4eafab2@mainlining.org> <20261101164930.17976-1-killdeath104@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9304e75396496855881251cac2edb0a5@mainlining.org> X-Sender: barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2026-11-01 17:49, Amir Hanip wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 13:30:28 +0100, Barnabas Czeman wrote: >> Poco M3 (citrus) is same HW like Redmi 9T (lime) and Remi 9T NFC >> (lemon) basically is a lime with NFC. >> So i think it would be better make a common base from lemon's >> devicetree instead of making the same devicetree again for the >> different variants where only the compatible and the model property >> will be the difference. >> Check sm6115-xiaomi-gingkgo-common for example, it was the same case >> for Redmi Note 8 (ginkgo) and 8T (willow). > > Hi Barnabas, Adam, > > Thanks for the review, that makes sense. I am preparing a v3 that > moves the shared parts of lemon into sm6115-xiaomi-lime-common.dtsi > and has both lemon and citrus include it. I used the name lime-common > following your naming. Happy to rename it. > > Plan for v3: > 1. dt-bindings (unchanged) > 2. lemon: move the shared nodes into the common dtsi, no functional > change intended > 3. citrus on top of the common dtsi > > I can only test citrus. I do not own a Redmi 9T, so lemon is untested > on hardware. Instead, I compared the lemon DTS before and after the > split, normalized with dtc (dtc -I dts -O dts -s). The only > difference is the numbering of two auto-generated phandles. I will > describe the check in the cover letter. Adam, > would you be able to test lemon once v3 is posted, or look at the > split beforehand? > > The IPA carve-outs (pil_ipa_fw_mem and pil_ipa_gsi_mem) are identical > on both, so they now live in the common dtsi. > > I kept the following per variant because I cannot tell whether they > are real hardware differences or just differences between the stock > firmware images: > > - ADSP carve-out: 0x53800000/0x2200000 on citrus, 0x53400000/0x2600000 > on lemon. Both regions end at 0x55a00000, so only the start and > size differ. I can only confirm that the citrus value works on my > device. If there are no overlaps the bigger range could work for both of them. > - GPU carve-out: 0x55a15000 on citrus (right after pil_ipa_gsi_mem, > like the SoC dtsi defaults), 0xfa400000 on lemon. The citrus value > works: the GPU runs with a full DT that includes the display > pipeline, which is not part of this series. I cannot verify > lemon's value. Adam, is 0xfa400000 intentional? > - PM6125 regulators: seven have different voltage ranges (s7, l5, > l7, l11, l17, l18, l22). l24 has the same range, but only citrus > sets regulator-allow-set-load. lemon also marks l5, l7 and l22 as > always-on, citrus does not. You should check where the regulators are used, at downstream many times driver bindings are overriding the ranges. You should check properties like these: -min-voltage = <1800000 0>; -max-voltage = <1800000 0>; -load-current = <180000 0>; For the always-on it could be a bad habit from downstream where they are not leave to the driver to set the regulator on/off, keeping always-on properties not always necessary with the upstream drivers. > - citrus deletes cdsp_sec_mem and the orientation-switch property of > usb_qmpphy, lemon does not. I think it could be just left over from the reference design since these devices are not supporting DP. > > Barnabas, Adam: do you know whether these differences are real, or > whether they only come from the firmware of each model? > > Thanks, > Amir