On 2021-08-05 23:55, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-08-05 10:47:20)
Stephen,
Thanks for taking time to review
the series.
On 2021-08-05 00:31, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sibi Sankar (2021-07-29 11:04:43)
>> Qualcomm SoCs (starting with SM8350) support per core voting for L3
>> cache
>> frequency.
>
> And the L3 cache frequency voting code can't be put into this cpufreq
> driver?
Yes, it could have gone either into
the cpufreq driver or l3 interconnect
provider driver. Taniya/Odelu preferred
the latter, because of the need for other
clients to vote for l3 frequencies in
the future.
What other clients are those?
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190814152116.GB28465@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
GPU was supposed to be one of the
other clients that would vote for
l3.
The other option to prevent
register re-arrangement would involve
using syscons from the cpufreq node, which
really wasn't necessary since there
wasn't any register overlap between the
two drivers.
Let's not do that.
>
>> So, re-arrange the cpufreq register offsets to allow access for
>> the L3 interconnect to implement per core control. Also prevent
>> binding
>> breakage caused by register offset shuffling by using the
>> SM8250/SM8350
>> EPSS compatible.
>>
>> Fixes: 7dbd121a2c58 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add cpufreq hw node")
>> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> index f86859bf76f1..74ef3b38343b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data {
>> u32 reg_volt_lut;
>> u32 reg_perf_state;
>> u8 lut_row_size;
>> + bool skip_enable;
>> };
>>
>> struct qcom_cpufreq_data {
>> @@ -257,19 +258,31 @@ static const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data
>> qcom_soc_data = {
>> .reg_volt_lut = 0x114,
>> .reg_perf_state = 0x920,
>> .lut_row_size = 32,
>> + .skip_enable = false,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data epss_soc_data = {
>> + .reg_freq_lut = 0x0,
>> + .reg_volt_lut = 0x100,
>> + .reg_perf_state = 0x220,
>> + .lut_row_size = 4,
>> + .skip_enable = true,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data epss_sm8250_soc_data = {
>> .reg_enable = 0x0,
>> .reg_freq_lut = 0x100,
>> .reg_volt_lut = 0x200,
>> .reg_perf_state = 0x320,
>> .lut_row_size = 4,
>> + .skip_enable = false,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpufreq_hw_match[] = {
>> { .compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw", .data = &qcom_soc_data },
>> { .compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-epss", .data = &epss_soc_data },
>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8250-cpufreq-epss", .data =
>> &epss_sm8250_soc_data },
>> + { .compatible = "qcom,sm8350-cpufreq-epss", .data =
>> &epss_sm8250_soc_data },
>> {}
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_cpufreq_hw_match);
>> @@ -334,10 +347,12 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct
>> cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> data->res = res;
>>
>> /* HW should be in enabled state to proceed */
>
> It looks odd that we're no longer making sure that the clk domain is
> enabled when we probe the driver. Why is that OK?
On newer EPSS hw it's no longer
required to perform the additional
hw enable check. IIRC we don't do
that on corresponding downstream
kernels as well.
It's fairly clear that we no longer perform the additional check. The
question is why that's OK.
Taniya probably would know more
about the history behind the change.
I'll dig up more info regarding ^^
and update the thread.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
