Hello Stephen,
On 7/13/2018 1:55 PM, spanda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 2018-07-13 01:11, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Taniya Das (2018-07-12 10:21:33)
++ Display driver team,
On 7/9/2018 8:36 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Taniya Das (2018-07-09 02:34:07)
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/2018 1:07 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Taniya Das (2018-07-09 00:07:21)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/2018 11:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Why is the nocache flag needed? Applies to all clks in
this file.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This flag is required for all RCGs whose PLLs are controlled
outside the
>>>>>> clock controller. The display code would require the
recalculated rate
>>>>>> always.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. Why is the PLL controlled outside of the clock
controller? The
>>>>> rate should propagate upward to the PLL from here, so who's going
>>>>> outside of that?
>>>>>
>>>> The DSI0/1 PLL are not part of the display clock controller, but
in the
>>>> display subsystem which are managed by the DRM drivers. When DRM
drivers
>>>> query for the rate clock driver should always return the non
cached rates.
>>>
>>> Why? Is the DSI PLL changing rate all the time, randomly, without
going
>>> through the clk APIs to do so?
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, I am afraid I do not have an answer for this, but this was the
>> requirement to always return the non cached rates from the clock
driver.
>>
>
> Ok. Who knows about this requirement? Can we add someone from the
> display driver to understand more?
>
As per my discussions offline with the display teams,
There is a use-case where the clock framework is unaware of the PLL VCO
frequency change and thus the drivers would query to get the actual HW
frequency rather than the cached one.
Do you think keeping these flags would have any impact other than always
getting the non-cached rates?
The flag will make it so clk_get_rate() works in spite of something
changing the frequency behind the framework's back, but I want to
understand what and why it's changing without framework involvement. We
shouldn't need the flag here, because this flag is typically for clks
that are controlled by some other entity that the kernel doesn't have
control over. In this case, it seems like we have full control of the
clk tree for the display PLL down to this clk, so it should be perfectly
fine to not have this flag. The presence of the flag means that the
display driver is doing something wrong.
These clocks are sourced from DSI PLL. In dsi command mode there is an
idle use case when there
is no activity on display, we switch of the source DSI PLL to save power
by calling clk_disable_unprepare().
In this scenario if some client queries the clk_get_rate(), then if
NO_CACHE flag is used the clk
driver will return the cached rate which is some non-zero value set when
we last called clk_set_rate(),
before enabling the clock, whereas actually in HW this clk is disabled.
So we used the NO_CACHE flag
for the call to land in clk_recalc_rate and we return zero if the PLL is
disabled.
I remember some customer had scripts that runs through all the clocks
during idle screen scenario
and call clk_get_rate(), where they complained display clk_get_rate
returns none zero value.
Do you think the clock driver needs any update for flag for the next series?
--
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
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation.
--
--
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
