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",
+ 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,
+};
+
static const struct rproc_hexagon_res msm8953_mss = {
.hexagon_mba_image = "mba.mbn",
.proxy_supply = (struct qcom_mss_reg_res[]) {
@@ -2717,6 +2758,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id q6v5_of_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8226-mss-pil", .data = &msm8226_mss},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8909-mss-pil", .data = &msm8909_mss},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8916-mss-pil", .data = &msm8916_mss},
+ { .compatible = "qcom,msm8917-mss-pil", .data = &msm8917_mss},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8926-mss-pil", .data = &msm8926_mss},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8953-mss-pil", .data = &msm8953_mss},
{ .compatible = "qcom,msm8974-mss-pil", .data = &msm8974_mss},
--
2.52.0
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 ...
> + 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
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
On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
> 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>;
It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
Konrad
On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>> 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>;
>
> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>
> Konrad
It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier to
use it as regulator i will change it
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
On 2025-12-29 13:51, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
> On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>> 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>;
>>
>> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>>
>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>>
>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>>
>> Konrad
> It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier to
> use it as regulator i will change it
> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
Only question is left what about SDM439 and SDM632? They were introduced
at 4.9 maybe that is why it was modified both are inheriting
MSS bindings from 8953 and 8937.
On 12/29/25 1:59 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
> On 2025-12-29 13:51, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>> On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>> 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>;
>>>
>>> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>>>
>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>>>
>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>>>
>>> Konrad
>> It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier to use it as regulator i will change it
>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
> Only question is left what about SDM439 and SDM632? They were introduced at 4.9 maybe that is why it was modified both are inheriting
> MSS bindings from 8953 and 8937.
Seems both are the same too
Konrad
On 2025-12-29 14:07, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 12/29/25 1:59 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>> On 2025-12-29 13:51, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>> On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>> 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>;
>>>>
>>>> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>>>>
>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>>>>
>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>>>>
>>>> Konrad
>>> It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier
>>> to use it as regulator i will change it
>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
>> Only question is left what about SDM439 and SDM632? They were
>> introduced at 4.9 maybe that is why it was modified both are
>> inheriting
>> MSS bindings from 8953 and 8937.
>
> Seems both are the same too
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm439-regulator.dtsi#L18
https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi#L17
SDM439 and SDM632 do not use simple regulator, s1 seems power domain to
me. I have checked it in use at Fairphone 3, Redmi 7 and 7A
all have S1 as a power domain.
>
> Konrad
On 12/30/25 4:25 AM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
> On 2025-12-29 14:07, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 12/29/25 1:59 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>> On 2025-12-29 13:51, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>> On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>>> 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>;
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>>>>>
>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>>>>>
>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>>>>>
>>>>> Konrad
>>>> It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier to use it as regulator i will change it
>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
>>> Only question is left what about SDM439 and SDM632? They were introduced at 4.9 maybe that is why it was modified both are inheriting
>>> MSS bindings from 8953 and 8937.
>>
>> Seems both are the same too
> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm439-regulator.dtsi#L18
> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi#L17
> SDM439 and SDM632 do not use simple regulator, s1 seems power domain to me. I have checked it in use at Fairphone 3, Redmi 7 and 7A
> all have S1 as a power domain.
Hm, it seems you're right. It does indeed use level-based voting which
would qualify it as a power domain in our upstream understanding
Konrad
On 2025-12-30 14:11, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 12/30/25 4:25 AM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>> On 2025-12-29 14:07, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> On 12/29/25 1:59 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>> On 2025-12-29 13:51, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>>>> 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>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Konrad
>>>>> It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier
>>>>> to use it as regulator i will change it
>>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
>>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
>>>> Only question is left what about SDM439 and SDM632? They were
>>>> introduced at 4.9 maybe that is why it was modified both are
>>>> inheriting
>>>> MSS bindings from 8953 and 8937.
>>>
>>> Seems both are the same too
>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm439-regulator.dtsi#L18
>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi#L17
>> SDM439 and SDM632 do not use simple regulator, s1 seems power domain
>> to me. I have checked it in use at Fairphone 3, Redmi 7 and 7A
>> all have S1 as a power domain.
>
> Hm, it seems you're right. It does indeed use level-based voting which
> would qualify it as a power domain in our upstream understanding
What would be the better solution?
1. Keep mss as power domain?
2. Set mss to a regulator for MSM8917 and keep as power domain for
MSM8937 and SDM439.
3. Split SDM632 and SDM439 MSS from MSM8937 and MSM8953 MSS and use
mss-supply
as regulator for MSM8917, MSM8937, MSM8940 and MSM8953 and use mss as
power domain for SDM439 and SDM632.
>
> Konrad
On 12/30/25 4:28 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
> On 2025-12-30 14:11, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 12/30/25 4:25 AM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>> On 2025-12-29 14:07, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 12/29/25 1:59 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-12-29 13:51, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-12-29 13:40, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/29/25 1:33 PM, barnabas.czeman@mainlining.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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>;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to be just a normal regulator on both 8917 and 8953
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi
>>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953.dtsi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917-regulator.dtsi
>>>>>>> https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/msm/+/android-7.1.0_r0.2/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Konrad
>>>>>> It is different between 3.18 and 4.9, 3.18 seems simpler and easier to use it as regulator i will change it
>>>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1375
>>>>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-3.18/-/blob/LA.UM.6.6.c32-05500-89xx.0/arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom/msm8917.dtsi#L1655
>>>>> Only question is left what about SDM439 and SDM632? They were introduced at 4.9 maybe that is why it was modified both are inheriting
>>>>> MSS bindings from 8953 and 8937.
>>>>
>>>> Seems both are the same too
>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm439-regulator.dtsi#L18
>>> https://git.codelinaro.org/clo/la/kernel/msm-4.9/-/blob/LA.UM.10.6.2.c26-01500-89xx.0/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8953-regulator.dtsi#L17
>>> SDM439 and SDM632 do not use simple regulator, s1 seems power domain to me. I have checked it in use at Fairphone 3, Redmi 7 and 7A
>>> all have S1 as a power domain.
>>
>> Hm, it seems you're right. It does indeed use level-based voting which
>> would qualify it as a power domain in our upstream understanding
> What would be the better solution?
> 1. Keep mss as power domain?
> 2. Set mss to a regulator for MSM8917 and keep as power domain for MSM8937 and SDM439.
> 3. Split SDM632 and SDM439 MSS from MSM8937 and MSM8953 MSS and use mss-supply
> as regulator for MSM8917, MSM8937, MSM8940 and MSM8953 and use mss as power domain for SDM439 and SDM632.
8917 and 8937 -> regulator
439 and 632 -> power domain
To match reality as we've established above
Konrad
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.