Hi Sibi,
On 3/1/24 05:31, Sibi Sankar wrote:
On 2/29/24 19:45, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 2/29/24 12:11, Cristian Marussi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:45:41AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 2/29/24 11:28, Cristian Marussi wrote:
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 10:22:39AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 2/29/24 09:59, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 2/28/24 17:00, Sibi Sankar wrote:
On 2/28/24 18:54, Lukasz Luba wrote:
On 2/27/24 18:16, Sibi Sankar wrote:
Register for limit change notifications if supported and use
the throttled
frequency from the notification to apply HW pressure.
Lukasz,
Thanks for taking time to review the series!
Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <quic_sibis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v3:
* Sanitize range_max received from the notifier. [Pierre]
* Update commit message.
� drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 29
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
� 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
index 76a0ddbd9d24..78b87b72962d 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c
@@ -25,9 +25,13 @@ struct scmi_data {
����� int domain_id;
����� int nr_opp;
����� struct device *cpu_dev;
+��� struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
����� cpumask_var_t opp_shared_cpus;
+��� struct notifier_block limit_notify_nb;
� };
+const struct scmi_handle *handle;
I've missed this bit here.
So for this change we actually have to ask Cristian or Sudeep
because I'm not sure if we have only one 'handle' instance
for all cpufreq devices.
If we have different 'handle' we cannot move it to the
global single pointer.
Sudeep, Cristian what do you think?
I was just replying noticing this :D .... since SCMI drivers can be
probed multiple times IF you defined multiple scmi top nodes in
your DT
containing the same protocol nodes, they receive a distinct
sdev/handle/ph
for each probe...so any attempt to globalize these wont work...BUT...
...this is a bit of a weird setup BUT it is not against the spec
and it can
be used to parallelize more the SCMI accesses to disjont set of
resources
within the same protocol (a long story here...) AND this type of
setup is
something that it is already used by some other colleagues of Sibi
working
on a different line of products (AFAIK)...
So, for these reasons, usually, all the other SCMI drivers have
per-instance
non-global references to handle/sdev/ph....
...having said that, thought, looking at the structure of CPUFReq
drivers, I am not sure that they can stand such a similar setup
where multiple instances of this same driver are probed
.... indeed the existent *ph refs above is already global....so it
wont already
work anyway in case of multiple instances now...
...and if I look at how CPUFreq expects the signature of
scmi_cpufreq_get_rate()
to be annd how it is implemented now using the global *ph
reference, it is
clearly already not working cleanly on a multi-instance setup...
...now...I can imagine how to (maybe) fix the above removing the
globals and
fixing this, BUT the question, more generally, is CPUFreq supposed
to work at all in
this multi-probed mode of operation ?
Does it even make sense to be able to support this in CPUFREQ ?
(as an example in cpufreq,c there is static global cpufreq_driver
pointing to the arch-specific configured driver BUT that also holds
some .driver_data AND that cleraly wont be instance specific if you
probe multiple times and register with CPUFreq multiple times...)
More questions than answers here :D
Thanks Cristian for instant response. Yes, indeed now we have more
questions :) (which is good). But that's good description of the
situation.
So lets consider a few option what we could do now:
1. Let Sibi add another global state the 'handle' but add
a BUG_ON() or WARN_ON() in the probe path if the next
'handle' instance is different than already set in global.
This would simply mean that we don't support (yet)
such configuration in a platform. As you said, we
already have the *ph global, so maybe such platforms
with multiple instances for this particular cpufreq and
performance protocol don't exist yet.
Yes this is the quickst way (and a WARN_ON() is better I'd say) but
there
are similar issues of "unicity" currently already with another vendor
SCMI
drivers and custom protocol currently under review, so I was thinking to
add a new common mechanism in SCMI to handle this ... not thought about
this really in depth and I want to chat with Sudeep about this...
2. Ask Sibi to wait with this change, till we refactor the
exiting driver such that it could support easily those
multiple instances. Then pick up this patch set.
Although, we would also like to have those notifications from our
Juno SCP reference FW, so the feature is useful.
3. Ask Sibi to refactor his patch to somehow get the 'handle'
in different way, using exiting code and not introduce this global.
IHMO we could do this in steps: 1. and then 2. When
we create some mock platform to test this refactoring we can
start cleaning it.
I should be able to volunteer a platform to test against when
we have things ready.
Both of these options really beg an answer to my original previous q
question...if we somehow enable this multi-probe support in the
scmi-cpufreq.c driver by avoiding glbals refs, does this work at all in
the context of CPUFreq ?
I don't know yet.
...or it is just that CPUFreq cannot handle such a configuration (and
maybe dont want to) and so the only solution here is just 1. at first
and
then a common refined mechanism (as mentioned above) to ensure this
"unicity"
of the probes for some drivers ?
This sounds reasonable.
I'm not familiar enough to grasp if this "multi-probed" mode of
operation is
allowed/supported by CPUFreq and, more important, if it makes any sense
at all to be a supported mode...
OK, let me check some stuff in the code and think for a while on that.
Thanks Cristian!
Sibi, please give me a few days. In the meantime you can continue
on the 'boost' patch set probably.
sure, thanks. I've plenty things to send out so no hurry ;)
-Sibi
I've went through the cpufreq. It's quite complicated how those
policies, cpus, drivers are setup. Although, IHMO we should be
safe with you current proposal in this patch.
As we discussed with Cristian, we can take that approach further.
Therefore, you can add:
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx>
Regards,
Lukasz
