-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 537
Add SoC SXR2250P #8148
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Add SoC SXR2250P #8148
Conversation
🔗 Helpful Links🧪 See artifacts and rendered test results at hud.pytorch.org/pr/pytorch/executorch/8148
Note: Links to docs will display an error until the docs builds have been completed. ✅ No FailuresAs of commit 5fea01d with merge base 70143a2 ( This comment was automatically generated by Dr. CI and updates every 15 minutes. |
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
95d1d6c
to
e0c023a
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
I may need some help to figure out the exact config for the SoC SXR2250P.. |
@@ -60,6 +61,7 @@ class SocInfo: | |||
QcomChipset.SM8750: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SM8750, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V79, 8)), | |||
QcomChipset.SSG2115P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SSG2115P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V73, 2)), | |||
QcomChipset.SA8295: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SA8295, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V68, 8)), | |||
QcomChipset.SXR2250P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR2250P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V68, 8)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This should be v69
@@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ enum QcomChipset: int { | |||
SM8650 = 57, | |||
SA8295 = 39, | |||
SM8750 = 69 | |||
SXR2250P = 36, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could you try 53? Thanks
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@ class QcomChipset(IntEnum): | |||
SM8650 = 57 # v75 | |||
SA8295 = 39 # v68 | |||
SM8750 = 69 # v79 | |||
SXR2250P = 42 # v69 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also 53 for this.
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
e0c023a
to
7dd2967
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
7dd2967
to
611cdb7
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
611cdb7
to
13b0e76
Compare
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
@winskuo-quic I added a few more SoCs to support, but not sure some of the specs. Can I get some help with this? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @cccclai,
I think SXR2250P is a variant of SXR2230P, and their DspArch and VTCM size should be the same. Could you try it on your side and see if compiling SXR2250P using -m SXR2230P
works?
Thanks.
SXR1230P = x, | ||
SXR2230P = x, | ||
SXR2250P = 53 | ||
SSG2125P = x |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SXR1230P = 45,
SXR2230P = 53,
SSG2125P = 58,
SXR2230P and SXR2250P are both 53. I think we could keep SXR2230P = 53 here and remove SXR2550P since SXR2550P is a variant of SXR2230P
SXR2230P = 1 # place holder | ||
SSG2115P = 1 # place holder | ||
SSG2125P = 1 # place holder | ||
SXR2250P = 53 # v69 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
SXR1230P = 45,
SXR2230P = 53,
SSG2125P = 58,
SSG2115P is duplicate
Also consider remove SXR2250P and keep SXR2230P = 53 due to the same reason above
QcomChipset.SXR1230P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR1230P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V69, 8)), | ||
QcomChipset.SXR2230P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR2230P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V69, 8)), | ||
QcomChipset.SSG2125P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SSG2125P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V69, 8)), | ||
QcomChipset.SXR2250P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR2250P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V69, 8)), | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
QcomChipset.SXR2250P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR2250P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V69, 8)),
QcomChipset.SXR1230P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR1230P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V73, 2)),
QcomChipset.SXR2230P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SXR2230P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V69, 8)),
QcomChipset.SSG2125P: SocInfo(QcomChipset.SSG2125P, HtpInfo(HtpArch.V73, 2)),
QcomChipset.SXR2250P is dupicate.
Also consider remove SXR2250P and keep SXR2230P due to the same reason above.
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
13b0e76
to
0b7929f
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
@winskuo-quic yes it works! I use
|
@winskuo-quic if this PR looks good to you, mind approving it? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM. Thanks
Sorry. Forgot to press approve when leaving the comments. |
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
0b7929f
to
6ade125
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
Summary: As title, need to support SoC SXR2250P Differential Revision: D69063201
6ade125
to
5fea01d
Compare
This pull request was exported from Phabricator. Differential Revision: D69063201 |
Differential Revision: D69063201