On 10/26/2016 12:35 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
On Mon 24 Oct 08:55 PDT 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
q6v55 use different regulator and clock resource than q6v5, hence
using separate resource handling for same.
Also reset register
programming in q6v55 is non secure so resource controller init-
ilization is not required for q6v55.
The reset comes from GCC, so please use the fact that gcc already is a
reset-controller.
Already in patch 1/5 have explained reason of not using the GCC to reset
pasting same here again
Infact i had done it the way suggested before i sent out initial
patchset, but then when i discussed with internal clock team, they said
they will
not support MSS RESET to be done via GCC because
"MSS_RESET is not a block reset, GCC reset controller is used only when
we need a BCR to be reset,
and which has a special purpose. MSS RESET doesn't fall under block
resets, it is not a clock and
cannot be associated with clock."
Downstream also MSS RESET is programmed through ioremap
Signed-off-by: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 271 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 271 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
index 8df95a0..c7dca40 100644
--- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
+++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
@@ -215,6 +215,203 @@ static void q6v5_regulator_disable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
regulator_set_voltage(mss, 0, 1150000);
}
+static int q6v55_regulator_init(struct q6v5 *qproc)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].supply = "vdd_cx";
+ qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].supply = "vdd_mx";
+ qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].supply = "vdd_pll";
+
+ ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(qproc->dev,
+ (ARRAY_SIZE(qproc->supply) - 1), qproc->supply);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get supplies\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+
+ return 0;
+}
This is very very similar to the existing q6v5_regulator_init, please
figure out a way to make the mss supply optional here instead of
creating a new function.
OK, Have implemented common init and enable function for clock and
regulator in patchset v2
+
+static int q6v55_clk_enable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
+{
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->ahb_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto out;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->axi_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_axi_clk;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->rom_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_rom_clk;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_gpll0_mss_clk;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_snoc_axi_clk;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_mnoc_axi_clk;
I believe it would be better to turn the clocks into an array, like the
regulators, so that we can loop over them rather than listing them
explicitly.
OK , Have used clock array to initialize and enable clocks for q6 in
patchset v2
+
+ return 0;
+err_mnoc_axi_clk:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
+err_snoc_axi_clk:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
+err_gpll0_mss_clk:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->rom_clk);
+err_rom_clk:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->axi_clk);
+err_axi_clk:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->ahb_clk);
+out:
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Clk Vote Failed\n");
I believe the clock framework will complain if above fails, so no need
to add another print here.
OK, Have removed print also
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static void q6v55_clk_disable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
+{
+
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->rom_clk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->axi_clk);
+ if (!qproc->ahb_clk_vote)
Why do you check ahb_clk_vote in the disable case but not in the enable
case?
Also, please move all ahb_clk_vote handling into the same patch.
OK, Infact check was not required for v56 applicable to 8996, so have
removed them.
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->ahb_clk);
+}
+
+static int q6v55_proxy_vote(struct q6v5 *qproc)
+{
+ struct regulator *mx = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer;
+ struct regulator *cx = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer;
+ struct regulator *vdd_pll = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = regulator_set_voltage(mx, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
I'm not convinced that we should vote MAX as minimum voltage here, is it
not 1.05V as in the q6v5?
OK
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set voltage for vreg_mx\n");
+ return ret;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_enable(mx);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to enable vreg_mx\n");
+ goto err_mx_enable;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_set_voltage(cx, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to request vdd_cx voltage.\n");
+ goto err_cx_voltage;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_set_load(cx, 100000);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set vdd_cx mode.\n");
+ goto err_cx_set_load;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_enable(cx);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to vote for vdd_cx\n");
+ goto err_cx_enable;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_set_voltage(vdd_pll, 1800000, 1800000);
PLL is fed from a fixed voltage regulator of 1.8V, so we do not need to
request a voltage (per Mark Brown's request).
OK.
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set voltage for vdd_pll\n");
+ goto err_vreg_pll_set_vol;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_set_load(vdd_pll, 10000);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set vdd_pll mode.\n");
+ goto err_vreg_pll_load;
+ }
+
+ ret = regulator_enable(vdd_pll);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to vote for vdd_pll\n");
+ goto err_vreg_pll_enable;
+ }
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->xo);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_xo_vote;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->pnoc_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_pnoc_vote;
+
+ ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->qdss_clk);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_qdss_vote;
+ qproc->unvote_flag = false;
+ return 0;
+
+err_qdss_vote:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->pnoc_clk);
+err_pnoc_vote:
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->xo);
+err_xo_vote:
+ regulator_disable(vdd_pll);
+err_vreg_pll_enable:
+ regulator_set_load(vdd_pll, 0);
+err_vreg_pll_load:
+ regulator_set_voltage(vdd_pll, 0, INT_MAX);
+err_vreg_pll_set_vol:
+ regulator_disable(cx);
+err_cx_enable:
+ regulator_set_load(cx, 0);
+err_cx_set_load:
+ regulator_set_voltage(cx, 0, INT_MAX);
+err_cx_voltage:
+ regulator_disable(mx);
+err_mx_enable:
+ regulator_set_voltage(mx, 0, INT_MAX);
+
+ return ret;
+}
As with the init function, this is very similar to the q6v5 case, so I
don't think we need to have separate functions for it.
A side note on this is that clk_prepare_enable(NULL) is valid, so if you
distinguish between the two cases during initialisation and put all
clocks in an array you could just call clk_prepare_enable() on all of
them, which will skip the ones that isn't initialised.
+
+static void q6v55_proxy_unvote(struct q6v5 *qproc)
+{
+ if (!qproc->unvote_flag) {
I don't think the "unvote_flag" is good design and don't see how you
would end up unvoting multiple times based on my original design.
But again, the answer is probably in some other patch - i.e. please
group your patches so I can see each step in its entirety.
code is reorganized yet i am using unvote flag but in transparent way.
i am setting unvote flag during enable and making it false during disable.
so that we unvote only if we have voted earlier.
+ regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer);
+ regulator_set_load(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer, 0);
+ regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer);
+ regulator_set_load(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer, 0);
+ regulator_set_voltage(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer,
+ 0, INT_MAX);
+
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->qdss_clk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->pnoc_clk);
+ clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->xo);
+
+ regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer);
+ regulator_set_voltage(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer,
+ 0, INT_MAX);
+ }
+ qproc->unvote_flag = true;
+}
+
+static void pil_mss_restart_reg(struct q6v5 *qproc, u32 mss_restart)
+{
+ if (qproc->restart_reg) {
+ writel_relaxed(mss_restart, qproc->restart_reg);
+ udelay(2);
+ }
+}
Drop this
can not drop due to reason explained already that i can not use GCC for
MSS reset.
+
static int q6v5_load(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
{
struct q6v5 *qproc = rproc->priv;
@@ -751,6 +948,65 @@ static int q6v5_init_clocks(struct q6v5 *qproc)
return 0;
}
+static int q6v55_init_clocks(struct q6v5 *qproc)
+{
+ qproc->ahb_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "iface");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->ahb_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get iface clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->ahb_clk);
+ }
+
+ qproc->axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "bus");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->axi_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get bus clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->axi_clk);
+ }
+
+ qproc->rom_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "mem");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->rom_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get mem clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->rom_clk);
+ }
These three are the same as q6v5...
+
+ qproc->snoc_axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "snoc_axi_clk");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->snoc_axi_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get snoc_axi_clk\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
+ }
+
+ qproc->mnoc_axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "mnoc_axi_clk");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get mnoc_axi_clk clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
+ }
+
+ qproc->gpll0_mss_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "gpll0_mss_clk");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get gpll0_mss_clk clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
+ }
+
+ qproc->xo = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "xo");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->xo)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get xo\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->xo);
+ }
And q6v5 will need "xo" as well, I missed this one.
OK.
+
+ qproc->pnoc_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "pnoc");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->pnoc_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get pnoc_clk clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->pnoc_clk);
+ }
+
+ qproc->qdss_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "qdss");
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->qdss_clk)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get qdss_clk clock\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->qdss_clk);
+ }
+
I would rather see that we have a single init_clocks function that based
on compatible will get the appropriate clocks.
OK.
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
{
qproc->mss_restart = devm_reset_control_get(qproc->dev, NULL);
@@ -762,6 +1018,21 @@ static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
return 0;
}
+static int q6v55_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc, struct platform_device *pdev)
+{
+ struct resource *res;
+
+ res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "restart_reg");
+ qproc->restart_reg = devm_ioremap(qproc->dev, res->start,
+ resource_size(res));
+ if (IS_ERR(qproc->restart_reg)) {
+ dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get restart_reg\n");
+ return PTR_ERR(qproc->restart_reg);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
Drop this
Can not drop as can not use GCC for MSS_RESET due to reason explained above.
+
static int q6v5_request_irq(struct q6v5 *qproc,
struct platform_device *pdev,
const char *name,
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
