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

[Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>]

On Mon Aug 18, 2025 at 1:22 AM CDT, Michael Walle wrote:
> 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

Ah, I don't see that series on the linux-arm-kernel list. If you can forward me
that I can work around whatever you've got.