On 7/3/2021 8:50 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Fri 02 Jul 02:35 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
On 7/2/2021 2:27 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Thu 01 Jul 15:12 CDT 2021, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 at 07:23, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed 30 Jun 15:29 CDT 2021, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 20:11, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed 30 Jun 10:47 CDT 2021, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 18:00, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed 30 Jun 08:31 CDT 2021, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On sm8250 dispcc and videocc registers are powered up by the MMCX power
domain. Currently we used a regulator to enable this domain on demand,
however this has some consequences, as genpd code is not reentrant.
Teach Qualcomm clock controller code about setting up power domains and
using them for gdsc control.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
There's a proposal to add a generic binding for statically assigning a
performance states here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/1622095949-2014-1-git-send-email-rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
I checked this thread. It looks like Rajendra will also switch to the
"required-opps" property. So if that series goes in first, we can drop
the call to set_performance_state. If this one goes in first, we can
drop the set_performance_state call after getting Rajendra's work in.
But that said, do you really need this?
The requirement for driving MMCX to LOW_SVS on SM8250 (and NOM on
SM8150/SC8180x) seems to only come from the fact that you push MDP_CLK
to 460MHz in &mdss.
But then in &mdss_mdp you do the same using an opp-table based on the
actual MDP_CLK, which per its power-domains will scale MMCX accordingly.
MDSS and DSI would bump up MMCX performance state requirements on
their own, depending on the frequency being selected.
Right, but as I copied things from the sm8250.dtsi to come up with
sm8150/sc8180x.dtsi I concluded that as soon as the assigned-clockrate
in &mdss kicks in I need the performance state to be at NOM.
So keeping the assigned-clockrate in &mdss means that MMCX will never go
below NOM.
No, because once MDP is fully running, it will lower the clock frequency:
# grep mdp_clk /sys/kernel/debug/clk/clk_summary
disp_cc_mdss_mdp_clk_src 1 1 0
150000000 0 0 50000 ?
disp_cc_mdss_mdp_clk 2 2 0
150000000 0 0 50000 Y
But won't that just lower the performance state requested by the
&mdss_mdp, while the &mdss still votes for NOM - with the outcome being
that we maintain NOM even if the clock goes down?
&mdss doesn't vote on performance state. At least it does not on
msm/msm-next which I have at hand right now.
&mdss toggles mdss_gdsc, but does not assign any performance state.
Right, but per the upstream implementation, enabling MDSS_GDSC could in
itself fail, because unless something else has driven up the performance
state the enable that trickles up won't actually turn on the supply.
On the other hand &mdss_mdp and &dsi0 clearly vote on mmcx's performance state.
Right, but it does so as part of its clock scaling, so this makes
perfect sense to me.
So wouldn't it be sufficient to ensure that MDSS_GDSC is parented by
MMCX and then use opp-tables associated with the devices that scales the
clock and thereby actually carries the "required-opps".
Actually no. I set the performance state in the qcom_cc_map, so that
further register access is possible. Initially I was doing this in the
qcom_cc_really_probe() and it was already too late.
Just to remind: this patchset is not about MDSS_GDSC being parented by
MMCX, it is about dispcc/videocc registers being gated with MMCX.
So you're saying that just enabling MMCX isn't enough to touch the
dispcc/videocc registers? If that's the case it seems like MMCX's
definition of "on" needs to be adjusted - because just specifying MMCX
as the power-domain for dispcc/videocc and enabling pm_runtime should
ensure that MMCX is enabled when the clock registers are accessed (I
don't see anything like that for the GDSC part though).
No, it is not enough. If I comment out the set_performance_state call,
the board reboots.
However I can set the opps as low as RET and register access will work.
I'll run more experiments and if everything works as expected, I can
use retention or min_svs level in the next iteration.
Just note that downstream specifies low_svs as minimum voltage level
for MMCX regulator.
It doesn't make sense to me that a lone power_on on the power-domain
wouldn't give us enough juice to poke the registers.
But digging into the rpmhpd implementation answers the question, simply
invoking rpmhpd_power_on() is a nop, unless
rpmhpd_set_performance_state() has previously been called, because
pd->corner is 0. So this explains why enable isn't sufficient.
Compare this with the rpmpd implementation that will send an
enable request to the RPM in this case.
Right, in case of RPMh, there was no separate 'enable' request which
could be sent, there was just a 'corner' request.
I don't completely recall, but the reason to not send a 'default corner'
on enable was perhaps to keep the enable and set_performance orthogonal.
However, given we then decided to send the lowest possible corner
in disable, it perhaps makes sense to send a 'lowest non-zero corner' on enable
as well.
I was slightly worries that the change would dump cx and mx from
whatever level the bootloader put it at down to LOW_SVS during boot.
But both rb3 and rb5 boots fine with this change, so I posted it here:
That seems to be a valid concern, perhaps this needs a little more wider testing on
more platforms to really make sure it isn;t causing some regression.
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210703025449.2687201-1-bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx/
Do you think that we should change that to:
rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, max(pd->corner, 1)) ?
Or
rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, max(pd->corner, pd->levels[1])) ?
In rpmhpd_power_on() and rpmhpd_set_performance_state() we pass the
index of the entry in pd->levels[] that we want, but in
rpmhpd_power_off() we pass the value of pd->levels[0].
So I would suggest dropping the if (pd->corner) and doing:
rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, max(pd->corner, 1));
So the index value represents the hlvl (0-15) that eventually gets sent to
rpmh, the pd->levels are the sparse vlvl values that come from the command
DB mappings.
What seems sane is to sent the lowest non-zero vlvl. That in most cases
would be at index 1, but for some which do not support complete off,
it could be at index 0.
I took this into consideration in above patch, keeping track of the
first non-zero corner and using this when the domain is enabled.
Unfortunately, if the first entry would be say LOW_SVS power_off would
request corner (hlvl) 64. So I fixed that in patch 1/2 in above series.
That was by design to make sure rpmh does not ignore your request to 'turn off'
a resource (since it really does not allow clients to dictate when to turn off)
and keep it at the same level as before.
Regards,
Bjorn
And it seems both rb3 and rb5 still boots with this change (but I need
to do some more testing to know for sure).
I thought our problem you had was that you need to set a
performance_state in order to clock up some of the clocks - e.g.
MDP_CLK.
No, even register access needs proper perf state.
Per above finding you're right, enabling a rpmhpd power-domain doesn't
do anything. And I don't find this intuitive or even in line with the
expectations of the api...
A quick test booting rb3 and rb5 seems to indicate that it's possible to
initialize pd->corner to 1 (to ensure that enable at least gives us the
lowest level).
set_performance_state(0) will however then result in voting for "off",
rather than the lowest enabled level.
Well, set_performance_state(0) means that "the device wouldn't
participate anymore to find the target performance state of the
genpd".
I agree.
Strictly speaking it does not specify whether it is ok to turn
it off or not. (like the regulator with the voltage set to 0V).
But I'd also like to hear a comment from Stephen here.
Looking at other power-domains (e.g. gdsc and rpmpd) enabling the
power-domain means it is no longer off and if you need some specific
performance state you have to vote for that.
So I'm also interested in hearing if there's any reasoning behind how
this was written.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
