[PATCH v3 2/2] drm/msm/dsi: Add phy configuration for QCM2290

[Marijn Suijten]

On 2022-09-24 15:19:00, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> From: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain at linaro.org>
> 
> The QCM2290 SoC a the 14nm (V2.0) single DSI phy. The platform is not
> fully compatible with the standard 14nm PHY, so it requires a separate
> compatible and config entry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Loic Poulain <loic.poulain at linaro.org>
> [DB: rebased and updated commit msg]
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov at linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c      |  2 ++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h      |  1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c
> index 7fc0975cb869..ee6051367679 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c
> @@ -549,6 +549,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id dsi_phy_dt_match[] = {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_MSM_DSI_14NM_PHY
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,dsi-phy-14nm",
>  	  .data = &dsi_phy_14nm_cfgs },
> +	{ .compatible = "qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-2290",
> +	  .data = &dsi_phy_14nm_2290_cfgs },
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-660",
>  	  .data = &dsi_phy_14nm_660_cfgs },
>  	{ .compatible = "qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-8953",
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h
> index 60a99c6525b2..1096afedd616 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h
> @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_20nm_cfgs;
>  extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_28nm_8960_cfgs;
>  extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_14nm_cfgs;
>  extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_14nm_660_cfgs;
> +extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_14nm_2290_cfgs;

following alphabetical sorting (same as the other locations in this
series), this should be above 660?

>  extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_14nm_8953_cfgs;
>  extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_10nm_cfgs;
>  extern const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_10nm_8998_cfgs;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c
> index 0f8f4ca46429..9f488adea7f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c
> @@ -1081,3 +1081,20 @@ const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_14nm_8953_cfgs = {
>  	.io_start = { 0x1a94400, 0x1a96400 },
>  	.num_dsi_phy = 2,
>  };
> +
> +const struct msm_dsi_phy_cfg dsi_phy_14nm_2290_cfgs = {
> +	.has_phy_lane = true,
> +	.regulator_data = dsi_phy_14nm_17mA_regulators,
> +	.num_regulators = ARRAY_SIZE(dsi_phy_14nm_17mA_regulators),
> +	.ops = {
> +		.enable = dsi_14nm_phy_enable,
> +		.disable = dsi_14nm_phy_disable,
> +		.pll_init = dsi_pll_14nm_init,
> +		.save_pll_state = dsi_14nm_pll_save_state,
> +		.restore_pll_state = dsi_14nm_pll_restore_state,
> +	},
> +	.min_pll_rate = VCO_MIN_RATE,
> +	.max_pll_rate = VCO_MAX_RATE,
> +	.io_start = { 0x5e94400 },

For sm6125 we also need this exact io_start (and a single PHY), do you
think it makes sense to add a compatible that reuses the same struct (I
can do that in a folloup patch) and/or generalize this struct (name)?

However, our regulator setup appears to be different.  I recall not
finding any `vcca` supply in my downstream sources, and had this in my
notes for a similar dsi_phy_14nm.c patch:

    sm6125 uses an RPM regulator

https://github.com/sonyxperiadev/kernel/blob/f956fbd9a234033bd18234d456a2c32c126b38f3/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/trinket-sde.dtsi#L388

- Marijn

> +	.num_dsi_phy = 1,
> +};
> -- 
> 2.35.1
>