On 03/04/2024 15:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2024 09:19, Xingyu Wu wrote:
> > On 03/04/2024 0:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/04/2024 11:09, Xingyu Wu wrote:
> >>> CPUfreq supports 4 cpu frequency loads on 375/500/750/1500MHz.
> >>> But now PLL0 rate is 1GHz and the cpu frequency loads become
> >>> 333/500/500/1000MHz in fact.
> >>>
> >>> So PLL0 rate should be default set to 1.5GHz. But setting the
> >>> PLL0 rate need certain steps:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Change the parent of cpu_root clock to OSC clock.
> >>> 2. Change the divider of cpu_core if PLL0 rate is higher than
> >>> 1.25GHz before CPUfreq boot.
> >>> 3. Change the parent of cpu_root clock back to PLL0 clock.
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Hal Feng <hal.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Fixes: e2c510d6d630 ("riscv: dts: starfive: Add cpu scaling for
> >>> JH7110
> >>> SoC")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Hi Stephen and Emil,
> >>>
> >>> This patch fixes the issue about lower rate of CPUfreq[1] by setting
> >>> PLL0 rate to 1.5GHz.
> >>>
> >>> In order not to affect the cpu operation, setting the PLL0 rate need
> >>> certain steps. The cpu_root's parent clock should be changed first.
> >>> And the divider of the cpu_core clock should be set to 2 so they
> >>> won't crash when setting 1.5GHz without voltage regulation. Due to
> >>> PLL driver boot earlier than SYSCRG driver, cpu_core and cpu_root
> >>> clocks are using by ioremap().
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://github.com/starfive-tech/VisionFive2/issues/55
> >>>
> >>> Previous patch link:
> >>> v2:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230821152915.208366-1-xingyu.wu@starfi
> >>> ve
> >>> tech.com/
> >>> v1:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230811033631.160912-1-xingyu.wu@starfi
> >>> ve
> >>> tech.com/
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Xingyu Wu
> >>> ---
> >>> .../jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi | 5 +
> >>> .../clk/starfive/clk-starfive-jh7110-pll.c | 102 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Please do not mix DTS and driver code. That's not really portable.
> >> DTS is being exported and used in other projects.
> >
> > OK, I will submit that in two patches.
> >
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -458,6 +535,8 @@ static int jh7110_pll_probe(struct
> >>> platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>> struct jh7110_pll_priv *priv;
> >>> unsigned int idx;
> >>> int ret;
> >>> + struct device_node *np;
> >>> + struct resource res;
> >>>
> >>> priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>> if (!priv)
> >>> @@ -489,6 +568,29 @@ static int jh7110_pll_probe(struct
> >>> platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>> return ret;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + priv->is_first_set = true;
> >>> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
> >>> +"starfive,jh7110-syscrg");
> >>
> >> Your drivers should not do it. It's fragile, hides true link/dependency.
> >> Please use phandles.
> >>
> >>
> >>> + if (!np) {
> >>> + ret = PTR_ERR(np);
> >>> + dev_err(priv->dev, "failed to get syscrg node\n");
> >>> + goto np_put;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res);
> >>> + if (ret) {
> >>> + dev_err(priv->dev, "failed to get syscrg resource\n");
> >>> + goto np_put;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + priv->syscrg_base = ioremap(res.start, resource_size(&res));
> >>> + if (!priv->syscrg_base)
> >>> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> Why are you mapping other device's IO? How are you going to ensure
> >> synced access to registers?
> >
> > Because setting PLL0 rate need specific steps and use the clocks of SYSCRG.
>
> That's not a reason to map other device's IO. That could be a reason for having
> syscon or some other sort of relationship, like clock or reset.
>
> > But SYSCRG driver also need PLL clock to be clock source when adding
> > clock providers. I tried to add SYSCRG clocks in 'clocks' property in
> > DT and use
> > clk_get() to get the clocks. But it could not run and crash. So I use
> > ioremap() instead.
>
> So instead of properly model the relationship, you entangle the drivers even
> more.
>
> Please come with a proper design for this. I have no clue about your hardware,
> but that looks like you are asynchronously configuring the same hardware in two
> different places.
>
> Sorry, that's poor code.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof,
If I use the old patch[1] like v2 and set the PLL0 default rate in the SYSCRG driver,
will it be better?
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230821152915.208366-1-xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks,
Xingyu Wu
