Hi Doug,
Am Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2014, 12:36:45 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, 15. Mai 2014, 11:18:44 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> >> Thomas,
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> >> > From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > +static int exynos4210_armclk_pre_rate_change(struct clk_notifier_data
> >> > *ndata, + struct exynos_cpuclk *armclk, void
> >> > __iomem *base) +{
> >> > + struct exynos4210_armclk_data *armclk_data = armclk->data;
> >> > + unsigned long alt_prate = clk_get_rate(armclk->alt_parent);
> >> > + unsigned long alt_div, div0, div1, tdiv0, mux_reg;
> >> > + unsigned long cur_armclk_rate, timeout;
> >> > + unsigned long flags;
> >> > +
> >> > + /* find out the divider values to use for clock data */
> >> > + while (armclk_data->prate != ndata->new_rate) {
> >> > + if (armclk_data->prate == 0)
> >> > + return -EINVAL;
> >> > + armclk_data++;
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + div0 = armclk_data->div0;
> >> > + div1 = armclk_data->div1;
> >> > + if (readl(base + SRC_CPU) & EXYNOS4210_MUX_HPM_MASK) {
> >> > + div1 = readl(base + DIV_CPU1) &
> >> > EXYNOS4210_DIV1_HPM_MASK;
> >> > + div1 |= ((armclk_data->div1) &
> >> > ~EXYNOS4210_DIV1_HPM_MASK);
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * if the new and old parent clock speed is less than the clock
> >> > speed + * of the alternate parent, then it should be ensured
> >> > that
> >> > at no point + * the armclk speed is more than the old_prate
> >> > until
> >> > the dividers are + * set.
> >> > + */
> >> > + tdiv0 = readl(base + DIV_CPU0);
> >> > + cur_armclk_rate = ndata->old_rate / EXYNOS4210_ARM_DIV1(tdiv0)
> >> > /
> >> > + EXYNOS4210_ARM_DIV2(tdiv0);
> >> > + if (alt_prate > cur_armclk_rate) {
> >> > + alt_div = _calc_div(alt_prate, cur_armclk_rate);
> >> > + _exynos4210_set_armclk_div(base, alt_div);
> >> > + div0 |= alt_div;
> >>
> >> Don't you need to up the voltage here, too? ...I haven't reviewed
> >> this whole patch (so perhaps it's elsewhere in the patch or in the
> >> series), but I stumbled upon this while trying to solve a different
> >> problem and figured I'd check...
> >
> > setting the voltage should be done by the cpufreq driver like cpufreq-cpu0
> > - whose usage this series intents to allow.
> >
> > As I've hijacked Thomas' concept for my current rockchip clock work, I've
> > already seen this working nicely :-) .
>
> I guess I should have been more clear. I was talking more
> specifically about upping the voltage as part of the mux switch in the
> case that alt_prate > cur_armclk_rate.
from earlier discussions I remember Thomas and me talked about setting a
divider to make sure that alt_prate <= cur_armclk_rate, so the voltage can
stay at its current level. I haven't looked deeply into this revision, but the
last one did exactly this.
> ...if you're switching from 200MHz to 300MHz and the alt_prate is
> 800MHz, you need to account for that fact. The code here accounts for
> the fact in setting the "armclk_div", but (I don't think) it accounts
> for the fact that 800MHz will need a higher voltage.
>
> As per a separate discussion, a clean solution might be to move the
> mux switching to the core of CPU_FREQ. That would have the side
> effect of also making it very easy to send notifications.
I'll just wait until you all decide what the best solution is :-), but
personally I like the concept of keeping the clock logic inside the clock
driver, especially as this is not limited to setting the mux but also adapting
tightly bound child clocks and this all may not fit into a generic
implementation of a cpufreq driver.
And this is also working really nice on my rockchip platform.
Heiko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
