Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4-j742s2: enable the bxs-4-64

["Michael Walle" <michael@walle.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2276 bytes --]

Hi,

On Wed Aug 13, 2025 at 8:13 PM CEST, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 12:58-20250813, Randolph Sapp wrote:
> > On Wed Aug 13, 2025 at 10:18 AM CDT, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > > On 18:25-20250808, rs@ti.com wrote:
> > >> From: Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>
> > >> 
> > >> Add the relevant device tree node for Imagination's BXS-4-64 GPU.
> > >> 
> > >> These devices uses a similar MSMC configuration to the J721S2. As such,
> > >> they also require the use of the dma-coherent attribute.
> > >> 
> > >> Signed-off-by: Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  .../boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-main-common.dtsi  | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > >>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > >> 
> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-main-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-main-common.dtsi
> > >> index 7c5b0c69897d..a44ca34dda62 100644
> > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-main-common.dtsi
> > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-j742s2-main-common.dtsi
> > >> @@ -2691,4 +2691,18 @@ bist_main14: bist@33c0000 {
> > >>  		bootph-pre-ram;
> > >>  		ti,sci-dev-id = <234>;
> > >>  	};
> > >> +
> > >> +	gpu: gpu@4e20000000 {
> > >> +		compatible = "ti,j721s2-gpu", "img,img-bxs-4-64", "img,img-rogue";
> > >
> > > Following  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/DBE4UO2RGAYX.17V1DAF8MQYJM@kernel.org/
> > > Is it worth having ti,j784s4-gpu here? Are there any SoC specific quirks
> > > that driver will need to handle?
> > 
> > No SoC specific quirks, aside from those already being tracked through the
> > dma-coherent attribute. If we actually want to register SoC specific
> > compatibility entries as advised by the kernel docs, just let me know. I've seen
> > this opinion toggle a few times.
> > 
>
> Please provide bootlogs on linux-next with just this series applied.
> IMHO, based on what I see at the moment on GPU, it might be a good idea
> to have SoC specific compatibility entries.

IMHO, that's *always* a good idea, even if the IP is the very same
as the integration might be different.

Apart from that, we now have two series which partly overlap.
Should I repost mine, as that's more than just the DT entry? (Which
doesn't work as is, I'd guess.)

-michael

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 297 bytes --]