Re: [PATCH 4/8] remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Add MSM8917

[barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org]

On 2025-12-29 12:08, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2025 at 03:21:54PM +0100, Barnabás Czémán wrote:
>> Add support for MSM8917 MSS it is similar for MDM9607 MSS
>> only difference is the mss power domain.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 46 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c 
>> b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c
>> index ffafbe501a05..2579558fb567 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c
>> @@ -259,6 +259,7 @@ enum {
>>  	MSS_MSM8226,
>>  	MSS_MSM8909,
>>  	MSS_MSM8916,
>> +	MSS_MSM8917,
>>  	MSS_MSM8926,
>>  	MSS_MSM8953,
>>  	MSS_MSM8974,
>> @@ -749,13 +750,15 @@ static int q6v5proc_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>>  		goto pbl_wait;
>>  	} else if (qproc->version == MSS_MDM9607 ||
>>  		   qproc->version == MSS_MSM8909 ||
>> +		   qproc->version == MSS_MSM8917 ||
>>  		   qproc->version == MSS_MSM8953 ||
>>  		   qproc->version == MSS_MSM8996 ||
>>  		   qproc->version == MSS_MSM8998 ||
>>  		   qproc->version == MSS_SDM660) {
>> 
>>  		/* Override the ACC value if required */
>> -		if (qproc->version == MSS_MDM9607)
>> +		if (qproc->version == MSS_MDM9607 ||
>> +		    qproc->version == MSS_MSM8917)
>>  			writel(QDSP6SS_ACC_OVERRIDE_VAL_9607,
>>  			       qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_STRAP_ACC);
>>  		else if (qproc->version != MSS_MSM8909 &&
>> @@ -817,6 +820,7 @@ static int q6v5proc_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>> 
>>  			/* Turn on L1, L2, ETB and JU memories 1 at a time */
>>  			if (qproc->version == MSS_MDM9607 ||
>> +			    qproc->version == MSS_MSM8917 ||
>>  			    qproc->version == MSS_MSM8953 ||
>>  			    qproc->version == MSS_MSM8996) {
>>  				mem_pwr_ctl = QDSP6SS_MEM_PWR_CTL;
>> @@ -826,7 +830,8 @@ static int q6v5proc_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>>  				 * Set first 5 bits in reverse to avoid
>>  				 * "inrush current" issues.
>>  				 */
>> -				if (qproc->version == MSS_MDM9607)
>> +				if (qproc->version == MSS_MDM9607 ||
>> +				    qproc->version == MSS_MSM8917)
>>  					reverse = 6;
>>  			} else {
>>  				/* MSS_MSM8998, MSS_SDM660 */
>> @@ -2538,6 +2543,42 @@ static const struct rproc_hexagon_res 
>> msm8916_mss = {
>>  	.version = MSS_MSM8916,
>>  };
>> 
>> +static const struct rproc_hexagon_res msm8917_mss = {
>> +	.hexagon_mba_image = "mba.mbn",
>> +	.proxy_supply = (struct qcom_mss_reg_res[]) {
>> +		{
>> +			.supply = "pll",
>> +			.uA = 100000,
>> +		},
>> +		{}
>> +	},
>> +	.proxy_clk_names = (char*[]){
>> +		"xo",
>> +		NULL
>> +	},
>> +	.active_clk_names = (char*[]){
>> +		"iface",
>> +		"bus",
>> +		"mem",
>> +		NULL
>> +	},
>> +	.proxy_pd_names = (char*[]) {
>> +		"cx",
>> +		"mx",
>> +		"mss",
> 
> Are you sure mss/pm8937_s1 also works as a power domain? It seems to be
> a plain regulator downstream (similar to msm8226/msm8974).
> 
> Same thing applies to MSM8953 as well though and there we seem to have
> decided to model it as a power domain ...
They have this at downstream, i guess this is why handled as a power 
domain.
vdd_mss-uV = <RPM_SMD_REGULATOR_LEVEL_TURBO>;
> 
>> +		NULL
>> +	},
>> +	.need_mem_protection = false,
>> +	.has_alt_reset = false,
>> +	.has_mba_logs = false,
>> +	.has_spare_reg = false,
>> +	.has_qaccept_regs = false,
>> +	.has_ext_bhs_reg = false,
>> +	.has_ext_cntl_regs = false,
>> +	.has_vq6 = false,
>> +	.version = MSS_MSM8917,
> 
> You could set MSS_MDM9607 here to drop the extra diff above (but not
> sure if that would be clearer).
> 
> Thanks,
> Stephan