diff mbox series

[V2,3/5] arm64: imx: imx8mm-beacon: Enable CPU_IMX

Message ID 20250321013109.709431-3-aford173@gmail.com
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Fabio Estevam
Headers show
Series [V2,1/5] imx: imx9: Imply IMX_TMU | expand

Commit Message

Adam Ford March 21, 2025, 1:31 a.m. UTC
Enable CPU_IMX to register the ARM core and identify the
speed and temperature information using the driver model.

Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>
---
 configs/imx8mm_beacon_defconfig | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
V2:  No Change

Comments

Marek Vasut March 21, 2025, 1:55 a.m. UTC | #1
On 3/21/25 2:31 AM, Adam Ford wrote:
> Enable CPU_IMX to register the ARM core and identify the
> speed and temperature information using the driver model.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>
I am tempted to say, imply this for all iMX8M and iMX9 in arch/... 
Kconfig , so it gets consistently enabled for everyone .
Adam Ford March 21, 2025, 2 a.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:55 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/21/25 2:31 AM, Adam Ford wrote:
> > Enable CPU_IMX to register the ARM core and identify the
> > speed and temperature information using the driver model.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>
> I am tempted to say, imply this for all iMX8M and iMX9 in arch/...
> Kconfig , so it gets consistently enabled for everyone .

I was not super excited to change the behavior for everyone.  Since
the IMX9 always displayed it, it seems safe, since there would be no
obvious change in behavior.  Making this implied for everyone would
result in a change in behavior.

adam
Marek Vasut March 21, 2025, 2:27 a.m. UTC | #3
On 3/21/25 3:00 AM, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 8:55 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/21/25 2:31 AM, Adam Ford wrote:
>>> Enable CPU_IMX to register the ARM core and identify the
>>> speed and temperature information using the driver model.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>
>> I am tempted to say, imply this for all iMX8M and iMX9 in arch/...
>> Kconfig , so it gets consistently enabled for everyone .
> 
> I was not super excited to change the behavior for everyone.  Since
> the IMX9 always displayed it, it seems safe, since there would be no
> obvious change in behavior.  Making this implied for everyone would
> result in a change in behavior.
Yes, I know. But then, I can safely say it is desired on hardware I 
maintain, I think we could try and run a quick poll and see if others 
see it the same way ?

Either way is fine by me, feel free to ignore this suggestion.
Fabio Estevam March 21, 2025, 12:10 p.m. UTC | #4
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:27 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org> wrote:

> Yes, I know. But then, I can safely say it is desired on hardware I
> maintain, I think we could try and run a quick poll and see if others
> see it the same way ?

I think it is a good idea to imply the thermal driver at the SoC level
instead of per board.

Thanks
Adam Ford March 21, 2025, 1:27 p.m. UTC | #5
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 7:10 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:27 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know. But then, I can safely say it is desired on hardware I
> > maintain, I think we could try and run a quick poll and see if others
> > see it the same way ?
>
> I think it is a good idea to imply the thermal driver at the SoC level
> instead of per board.

OK.  I'll spin a V3 which implies the respective thermal driver at the
SoC level for IMX8 and 8M families, since those are what are supported
in the CPU driver.  Should I expand this list beyond those?  I am not
sure how far back to go.

thanks,

adam

>
> Thanks
Marek Vasut March 21, 2025, 1:59 p.m. UTC | #6
On 3/21/25 2:27 PM, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 7:10 AM Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:27 PM Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I know. But then, I can safely say it is desired on hardware I
>>> maintain, I think we could try and run a quick poll and see if others
>>> see it the same way ?
>>
>> I think it is a good idea to imply the thermal driver at the SoC level
>> instead of per board.
> 
> OK.  I'll spin a V3 which implies the respective thermal driver at the
> SoC level for IMX8 and 8M families, since those are what are supported
> in the CPU driver.  Should I expand this list beyond those?  I am not
> sure how far back to go.
8/8M and newer seems like the right way, thanks !
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/configs/imx8mm_beacon_defconfig b/configs/imx8mm_beacon_defconfig
index 56e18893b77..bcb60a63795 100644
--- a/configs/imx8mm_beacon_defconfig
+++ b/configs/imx8mm_beacon_defconfig
@@ -84,6 +84,8 @@  CONFIG_SPL_CLK_COMPOSITE_CCF=y
 CONFIG_CLK_COMPOSITE_CCF=y
 CONFIG_SPL_CLK_IMX8MM=y
 CONFIG_CLK_IMX8MM=y
+CONFIG_CPU=y
+CONFIG_CPU_IMX=y
 CONFIG_USB_FUNCTION_FASTBOOT=y
 CONFIG_FASTBOOT_BUF_ADDR=0x42800000
 CONFIG_FASTBOOT_BUF_SIZE=0x20000000