On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 06:28:01PM +0530, Sayali Lokhande wrote:
> This change adds the use of devfreq to MMC.
> Both eMMC and SD card will use it.
> For some workloads, such as video playback, it isn't
> necessary for these cards to run at high speed.
> Running at lower frequency, for example 52MHz, in such
> cases can still meet the deadlines for data transfers.
> Scaling down the clock frequency dynamically has power
> savings not only because the bus is running at lower frequency
> but also has an advantage of scaling down the system core
> voltage, if supported.
Is there really power savings if there's no voltage control?
> Provide an ondemand clock scaling support similar to the
> cpufreq ondemand governor having two thresholds,
> up_threshold and down_threshold to decide whether to
> increase the frequency or scale it down respectively.
> The sampling interval is in the order of milliseconds.
> If sampling interval is too low, frequent switching of
> frequencies can lead to high power consumption and if
> sampling interval is too high, the clock scaling logic
> would take long time to realize that the underlying
> hardware (controller and card) is busy and scale up
> the clocks.
Why the short lines?
>
> Signed-off-by: Talel Shenhar <tatias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sayali Lokhande <sayalil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt | 10 +
Bindings should be separate patches.
> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 556 +++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/mmc/core/core.h | 7 +
> drivers/mmc/core/debugfs.c | 46 ++
> drivers/mmc/core/host.c | 8 +
> drivers/mmc/core/mmc.c | 200 +++++++-
> drivers/mmc/core/sd.c | 72 ++-
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 37 ++
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-pltfm.c | 11 +
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.c | 27 +
> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci.h | 8 +
> include/linux/mmc/card.h | 5 +
> include/linux/mmc/host.h | 70 +++
> 13 files changed, 1055 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt
> index 502b3b8..bd8470a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/sdhci-msm.txt
> @@ -26,6 +26,15 @@ Required properties:
> "cal" - reference clock for RCLK delay calibration (optional)
> "sleep" - sleep clock for RCLK delay calibration (optional)
>
> +Optional Properties:
> +- qcom,devfreq,freq-table - specifies supported frequencies for clock scaling.
> + Clock scaling logic shall toggle between these frequencies based
> + on card load. In case the defined frequencies are over or below
> + the supported card frequencies, they will be overridden
> + during card init. In case this entry is not supplied,
> + the driver will construct one based on the card
> + supported max and min frequencies.
> + The frequencies must be ordered from lowest to highest.
Why is this qcom specific?
I believe I also saw interconnect binding for SD/MMC. How does that
relate to this? There should be some coordination of this work.
> Example:
>
> sdhc_1: sdhci@f9824900 {
> @@ -43,6 +52,7 @@ Example:
>
> clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_APPS_CLK>, <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_AHB_CLK>;
> clock-names = "core", "iface";
> + qcom,devfreq,freq-table = <52000000 200000000>;
> };
>
> sdhc_2: sdhci@f98a4900 {
