RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
discuss the core changes before submitting.

The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).

We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
"nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
all the devices at the start

An example of tegra30a.dtsi:

#include "tegra30.dtsi"

/ {
         compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";

         clock@60006000 {
                 compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
         };
}

We don't think the changes are big enough to warrant their own
Kconfig/defconfig updates.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
discuss the core changes before submitting.

The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).

We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
"nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
all the devices at the start

An example of tegra30a.dtsi:

#include "tegra30.dtsi"

/ {
         compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";

         clock at 60006000 {
                 compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
         };
}

We don't think the changes are big enough to warrant their own
Kconfig/defconfig updates.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Mikko Perttunen]

On 07/12/2018 04:36 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
> discuss the core changes before submitting.
> 
> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
> 
> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
> all the devices at the start
> 
> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
> 
> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
> 
> / {
>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
> 
>          clock@60006000 {
>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>          };
> }
> 
> We don't think the changes are big enough to warrant their own
> Kconfig/defconfig updates.
> 

What kind of changes do you have? Tegra30a would point to a separate SoC 
revision of Tegra3 the existence of which I'm not aware of. If you can 
show some of the changes it would be easier to say how the system should 
be specified.

Thanks,
Mikko

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Mikko Perttunen]

On 07/12/2018 04:36 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
> discuss the core changes before submitting.
> 
> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
> 
> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
> all the devices at the start
> 
> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
> 
> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
> 
> / {
>  ??????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
> 
>  ??????? clock at 60006000 {
>  ??????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>  ??????? };
> }
> 
> We don't think the changes are big enough to warrant their own
> Kconfig/defconfig updates.
> 

What kind of changes do you have? Tegra30a would point to a separate SoC 
revision of Tegra3 the existence of which I'm not aware of. If you can 
show some of the changes it would be easier to say how the system should 
be specified.

Thanks,
Mikko

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 12/07/18 14:50, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 04:36 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>
>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>
>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>> all the devices at the start
>>
>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>
>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>
>> / {
>>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>
>>          clock@60006000 {
>>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>          };
>> }
>>
>> We don't think the changes are big enough to warrant their own
>> Kconfig/defconfig updates.
>>
> 
> What kind of changes do you have? Tegra30a would point to a separate SoC 
> revision of Tegra3 the existence of which I'm not aware of. If you can 
> show some of the changes it would be easier to say how the system should 
> be specified.

I'm just working on the core clock initialisation patches as our
original work was just patching the tegra20 and tegra30 clock init
tables.

As far as we can see the tegra30 automotive grade silicon is mostly
compatible with the tegra30 but has some clock restrictions and
initialisation changes.


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 12/07/18 14:50, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 04:36 PM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>
>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>
>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>> all the devices at the start
>>
>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>
>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>
>> / {
>> ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>
>> ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>> ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>> ???????? };
>> }
>>
>> We don't think the changes are big enough to warrant their own
>> Kconfig/defconfig updates.
>>
> 
> What kind of changes do you have? Tegra30a would point to a separate SoC 
> revision of Tegra3 the existence of which I'm not aware of. If you can 
> show some of the changes it would be easier to say how the system should 
> be specified.

I'm just working on the core clock initialisation patches as our
original work was just patching the tegra20 and tegra30 clock init
tables.

As far as we can see the tegra30 automotive grade silicon is mostly
compatible with the tegra30 but has some clock restrictions and
initialisation changes.


-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
> discuss the core changes before submitting.
> 
> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
> 
> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
> all the devices at the start
> 
> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
> 
> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
> 
> / {
>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
> 
>          clock@60006000 {
>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>          };
> }

This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; 
it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra 
compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect 
this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that 
already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
> discuss the core changes before submitting.
> 
> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
> 
> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
> all the devices at the start
> 
> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
> 
> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
> 
> / {
>  ??????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
> 
>  ??????? clock at 60006000 {
>  ??????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>  ??????? };
> }

This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; 
it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra 
compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect 
this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that 
already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>
>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>
>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>> all the devices at the start
>>
>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>
>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>
>> / {
>>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>
>>          clock@60006000 {
>>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>          };
>> }
> 
> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; 
> it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra 
> compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect 
> this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that 
> already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.

The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
so I don't know how much actual data I can share.

To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.

For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.

PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>
>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>
>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>> all the devices at the start
>>
>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>
>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>
>> / {
>> ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>
>> ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>> ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>> ???????? };
>> }
> 
> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; 
> it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra 
> compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect 
> this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that 
> already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.

The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
so I don't know how much actual data I can share.

To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.

For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.

PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Jon Hunter]

On 13/07/18 10:41, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>
>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>
>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>> all the devices at the start
>>>
>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>
>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>
>>> / {
>>>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>
>>>          clock@60006000 {
>>>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>          };
>>> }
>>
>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
> 
> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
> 
> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
> 
> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.

It should be, if you see drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra.c there is an
'early_initcall(tegra_init_fuse)' and there is a 'tegra_fuse_read_early()'
function that can be used. 

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Jon Hunter]

On 13/07/18 10:41, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>
>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>
>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>> all the devices at the start
>>>
>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>
>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>
>>> / {
>>> ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>
>>> ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>>> ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>> ???????? };
>>> }
>>
>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
> 
> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
> 
> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
> 
> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.

It should be, if you see drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra.c there is an
'early_initcall(tegra_init_fuse)' and there is a 'tegra_fuse_read_early()'
function that can be used. 

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 13/07/18 10:58, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 13/07/18 10:41, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>>
>>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>>
>>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>>> all the devices at the start
>>>>
>>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>>
>>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>>
>>>> / {
>>>>           compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>>
>>>>           clock@60006000 {
>>>>                   compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>>           };
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
>>
>> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
>> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
>> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
>> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
>> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
>>
>> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
>> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
>> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
>> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
>>
>> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
>> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
>> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
>> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
> 
> It should be, if you see drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra.c there is an
> 'early_initcall(tegra_init_fuse)' and there is a 'tegra_fuse_read_early()'
> function that can be used.

Ok, I've tried looking through all the data-sheets I have and I can't
find any data on which fuse-bits would be needed to identify the two
versions. Does anyone else know where to look?

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 13/07/18 10:58, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 13/07/18 10:41, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>>
>>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>>
>>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>>> all the devices at the start
>>>>
>>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>>
>>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>>
>>>> / {
>>>>  ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>>
>>>>  ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>>>>  ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>>  ???????? };
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
>>
>> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
>> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
>> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
>> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
>> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
>>
>> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
>> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
>> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
>> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
>>
>> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
>> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
>> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
>> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
> 
> It should be, if you see drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra.c there is an
> 'early_initcall(tegra_init_fuse)' and there is a 'tegra_fuse_read_early()'
> function that can be used.

Ok, I've tried looking through all the data-sheets I have and I can't
find any data on which fuse-bits would be needed to identify the two
versions. Does anyone else know where to look?

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/13/2018 03:41 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>
>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>
>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>> all the devices at the start
>>>
>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>
>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>
>>> / {
>>>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>
>>>          clock@60006000 {
>>>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>          };
>>> }
>>
>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical 
>> AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an 
>> extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to 
>> detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of 
>> that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
> 
> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.

I believe this just changes the *selection* of values to use (clock 
rates, clock sources), not *how* to program them (set of registers and 
fields, programming algorithm), which is what the DT compatible is 
mainly about. In other words, it's mainly a performance/configuration 
decision not different HW.

> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
> 
> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
> 
> PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.

As Job mentioned, the fuse driver should/could be available early enough 
without issue. It may have to (and probably already does) hard-code the 
physical address of the fuses rather than being configured from DT for 
this. I think if you read the chip "SKU" value from fuses, that should 
indicate which sets of restrictions on clocks/... are required, and 
there are many more SKUs than just "regular" and "automotive", although 
all the different SKUs may be bucketed into fewer sets of 
restriction/configuration data.

Briefly looking at drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/speedo-tegra20.c, some (a very 
little) of this may already be there

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/13/2018 03:41 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>
>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>
>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>> all the devices at the start
>>>
>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>
>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>
>>> / {
>>> ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>
>>> ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>>> ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>> ???????? };
>>> }
>>
>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical 
>> AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add an 
>> extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be to 
>> detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some of 
>> that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
> 
> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.

I believe this just changes the *selection* of values to use (clock 
rates, clock sources), not *how* to program them (set of registers and 
fields, programming algorithm), which is what the DT compatible is 
mainly about. In other words, it's mainly a performance/configuration 
decision not different HW.

> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
> 
> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
> 
> PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.

As Job mentioned, the fuse driver should/could be available early enough 
without issue. It may have to (and probably already does) hard-code the 
physical address of the fuses rather than being configured from DT for 
this. I think if you read the chip "SKU" value from fuses, that should 
indicate which sets of restrictions on clocks/... are required, and 
there are many more SKUs than just "regular" and "automotive", although 
all the different SKUs may be bucketed into fewer sets of 
restriction/configuration data.

Briefly looking at drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/speedo-tegra20.c, some (a very 
little) of this may already be there

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 13/07/18 17:53, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/13/2018 03:41 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>>
>>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>>
>>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>>> all the devices at the start
>>>>
>>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>>
>>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>>
>>>> / {
>>>>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>>
>>>>          clock@60006000 {
>>>>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>>          };
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical 
>>> AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add 
>>> an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be 
>>> to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some 
>>> of that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
>>
>> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
>> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
>> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
>> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
>> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
> 
> I believe this just changes the *selection* of values to use (clock 
> rates, clock sources), not *how* to program them (set of registers and 
> fields, programming algorithm), which is what the DT compatible is 
> mainly about. In other words, it's mainly a performance/configuration 
> decision not different HW.
> 
>> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
>> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
>> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
>> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
>>
>> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
>> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
>> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
>> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
>>
>> PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.
> 
> As Job mentioned, the fuse driver should/could be available early enough 
> without issue. It may have to (and probably already does) hard-code the 
> physical address of the fuses rather than being configured from DT for 
> this. I think if you read the chip "SKU" value from fuses, that should 
> indicate which sets of restrictions on clocks/... are required, and 
> there are many more SKUs than just "regular" and "automotive", although 
> all the different SKUs may be bucketed into fewer sets of 
> restriction/configuration data.
> 
> Briefly looking at drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/speedo-tegra20.c, some (a very 
> little) of this may already be there

Ok, the logs I have from one of the automotive systems has:

[] Tegra Revision: A03 SKU: 176 CPU Process: 3 SoC Process: 0

So would a test for:
	sku_info->revision == TEGRA_REVISION_A03 &&
	sku_info->sku_id == 176

be ok, or does that need some sort of mask?


I've not tried updating speedo-tegra30.c as I didn't really understand
what all the values where (and we didn't use cpufreq-scaling)

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Ben Dooks]

On 13/07/18 17:53, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/13/2018 03:41 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>>
>>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>>
>>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>>> all the devices at the start
>>>>
>>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>>
>>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>>
>>>> / {
>>>> ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>>
>>>> ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>>>> ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>> ???????? };
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical 
>>> AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add 
>>> an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might be 
>>> to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do some 
>>> of that already; search for speedo related code in arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
>>
>> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
>> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
>> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
>> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
>> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
> 
> I believe this just changes the *selection* of values to use (clock 
> rates, clock sources), not *how* to program them (set of registers and 
> fields, programming algorithm), which is what the DT compatible is 
> mainly about. In other words, it's mainly a performance/configuration 
> decision not different HW.
> 
>> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
>> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
>> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
>> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
>>
>> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
>> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
>> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
>> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
>>
>> PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.
> 
> As Job mentioned, the fuse driver should/could be available early enough 
> without issue. It may have to (and probably already does) hard-code the 
> physical address of the fuses rather than being configured from DT for 
> this. I think if you read the chip "SKU" value from fuses, that should 
> indicate which sets of restrictions on clocks/... are required, and 
> there are many more SKUs than just "regular" and "automotive", although 
> all the different SKUs may be bucketed into fewer sets of 
> restriction/configuration data.
> 
> Briefly looking at drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/speedo-tegra20.c, some (a very 
> little) of this may already be there

Ok, the logs I have from one of the automotive systems has:

[] Tegra Revision: A03 SKU: 176 CPU Process: 3 SoC Process: 0

So would a test for:
	sku_info->revision == TEGRA_REVISION_A03 &&
	sku_info->sku_id == 176

be ok, or does that need some sort of mask?


I've not tried updating speedo-tegra30.c as I didn't really understand
what all the values where (and we didn't use cpufreq-scaling)

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius

https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html

Re: RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/20/2018 04:25 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 13/07/18 17:53, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/13/2018 03:41 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>>>
>>>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>>>> all the devices at the start
>>>>>
>>>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>>          compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>>>
>>>>>          clock@60006000 {
>>>>>                  compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>>>          };
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical 
>>>> AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add 
>>>> an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might 
>>>> be to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do 
>>>> some of that already; search for speedo related code in 
>>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
>>>
>>> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
>>> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
>>> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
>>> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
>>> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
>>
>> I believe this just changes the *selection* of values to use (clock 
>> rates, clock sources), not *how* to program them (set of registers and 
>> fields, programming algorithm), which is what the DT compatible is 
>> mainly about. In other words, it's mainly a performance/configuration 
>> decision not different HW.
>>
>>> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
>>> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
>>> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
>>> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
>>>
>>> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
>>> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
>>> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
>>> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
>>>
>>> PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.
>>
>> As Job mentioned, the fuse driver should/could be available early 
>> enough without issue. It may have to (and probably already does) 
>> hard-code the physical address of the fuses rather than being 
>> configured from DT for this. I think if you read the chip "SKU" value 
>> from fuses, that should indicate which sets of restrictions on 
>> clocks/... are required, and there are many more SKUs than just 
>> "regular" and "automotive", although all the different SKUs may be 
>> bucketed into fewer sets of restriction/configuration data.
>>
>> Briefly looking at drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/speedo-tegra20.c, some (a 
>> very little) of this may already be there
> 
> Ok, the logs I have from one of the automotive systems has:
> 
> [] Tegra Revision: A03 SKU: 176 CPU Process: 3 SoC Process: 0
> 
> So would a test for:
>      sku_info->revision == TEGRA_REVISION_A03 &&
>      sku_info->sku_id == 176
> 
> be ok, or does that need some sort of mask?

I don't know all the automotive SKU numbers, but that seems like it 
might be a good start. I'm not sure if SKU numbers are subordinate to 
chip revisions (probably not) or global and apply to all chip revisions 
(I guess so).

Let's create a helper function, something like 
tegra_is_automotive_chip(), to centralize the check so it's easy to add 
more SKUs/revisions in the future.

> I've not tried updating speedo-tegra30.c as I didn't really understand
> what all the values where (and we didn't use cpufreq-scaling)
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

RFC: tegra2/tegra3 automotive part changes

[Stephen Warren]

On 07/20/2018 04:25 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On 13/07/18 17:53, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/13/2018 03:41 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>> On 12/07/18 16:56, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 07/12/2018 07:36 AM, Ben Dooks wrote:
>>>>> Hello, we are looking at up-streaming some of the work we have
>>>>> done on the tegra2 and tegra3 automotive devices. The automotive
>>>>> grade devices are close the commercial parts so we would like to
>>>>> discuss the core changes before submitting.
>>>>>
>>>>> The changes are mostly with things like the clock setup and a
>>>>> few peripheral quirks (IIRC these are mostly MMC).
>>>>>
>>>>> We are proposing to change the device-tree properties for the root
>>>>> node and any other affected devices from "nvidia,tegraXX" to a new
>>>>> "nvidia,tegraXXa". We would welcome discussion on whether to update
>>>>> all the devices at the start
>>>>>
>>>>> An example of tegra30a.dtsi:
>>>>>
>>>>> #include "tegra30.dtsi"
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>> ???????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a";
>>>>>
>>>>> ???????? clock at 60006000 {
>>>>> ???????????????? compatible = "nvidia,tegra30a-car";
>>>>> ???????? };
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't sound right. Auto and commercial parts are identical 
>>>> AFAIK; it's just qualification differences. Hence at most you'd add 
>>>> an extra compatible value and not remove the old one. Better might 
>>>> be to detect this at run-time from the fuses. I think we already do 
>>>> some of that already; search for speedo related code in 
>>>> arch/arm/mach-tegra/.
>>>
>>> The nvidia pdk for the automotive didn't set the clocks up in the
>>> same way and we where told that there are certain clock restrictions
>>> for the automotive parts that the commercial ones do not have. Some of
>>> this came from internal discussions with nvidia and NDA'd datasheets
>>> so I don't know how much actual data I can share.
>>
>> I believe this just changes the *selection* of values to use (clock 
>> rates, clock sources), not *how* to program them (set of registers and 
>> fields, programming algorithm), which is what the DT compatible is 
>> mainly about. In other words, it's mainly a performance/configuration 
>> decision not different HW.
>>
>>> To get the 4.4 kernel to be similar enough to work with the tegra30a
>>> we had to do some changes to the clock initialisation. For things
>>> like the clock I am not sure if leaving a tegra30-car in there would
>>> be a good idea, it may boot but probably won't be stable.
>>>
>>> For the fuses, is the fuse driver up early enough to allow the clock
>>> driver could use this? otherwise I think the device-tree change would
>>> be the only way. I'm not sure if I have the information to hand on
>>> how to differentiate the tegra30 and tegra20.
>>>
>>> PS, we'll want to do the same for the tegra20.
>>
>> As Job mentioned, the fuse driver should/could be available early 
>> enough without issue. It may have to (and probably already does) 
>> hard-code the physical address of the fuses rather than being 
>> configured from DT for this. I think if you read the chip "SKU" value 
>> from fuses, that should indicate which sets of restrictions on 
>> clocks/... are required, and there are many more SKUs than just 
>> "regular" and "automotive", although all the different SKUs may be 
>> bucketed into fewer sets of restriction/configuration data.
>>
>> Briefly looking at drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/speedo-tegra20.c, some (a 
>> very little) of this may already be there
> 
> Ok, the logs I have from one of the automotive systems has:
> 
> [] Tegra Revision: A03 SKU: 176 CPU Process: 3 SoC Process: 0
> 
> So would a test for:
>  ????sku_info->revision == TEGRA_REVISION_A03 &&
>  ????sku_info->sku_id == 176
> 
> be ok, or does that need some sort of mask?

I don't know all the automotive SKU numbers, but that seems like it 
might be a good start. I'm not sure if SKU numbers are subordinate to 
chip revisions (probably not) or global and apply to all chip revisions 
(I guess so).

Let's create a helper function, something like 
tegra_is_automotive_chip(), to centralize the check so it's easy to add 
more SKUs/revisions in the future.

> I've not tried updating speedo-tegra30.c as I didn't really understand
> what all the values where (and we didn't use cpufreq-scaling)
>