On 2020-09-09 12:38, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2020-09-09 00:04:00)
Hi,
On 2020-09-09 00:02, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2020-09-07 22:36:48)
>> From: "Isaac J. Manjarres" <isaacm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Older chipsets may not be allowed to configure certain LLCC registers
>> as that is handled by the secure side software. However, this is not
>> the case for newer chipsets and they must configure these registers
>> according to the contents of the SCT table, while keeping in mind that
>> older targets may not have these capabilities. So add support to allow
>> such configuration of registers to enable capacity based allocation
>> and power collapse retention for capable chipsets.
>>
>> Reason for choosing capacity based allocation rather than the default
>> way based allocation is because capacity based allocation allows more
>> finer grain partition and provides more flexibility in configuration.
>> As for the retention through power collapse, it has an advantage where
>> the cache hits are more when we wake up from power collapse although
>> it does burn more power but the exact power numbers are not known at
>> the moment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Isaac J. Manjarres <isaacm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> (sai: use existing config instead of dt property and commit msg
>> change)
>
> Should be the following format:
>
> [saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx: use existing...]
>
Hmm, is this documented somewhere because a quick grep shows
quite a few places where just the first name is added. Plus
there is already a signed-off-by line below this, so we know
that it is this 'sai' who made the extra changes.
See Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
Thanks, it says **prepending the description with your mail and/or
name**.
So its either mail and/or name, but I didn't give my full name
and I don't have a strong opinion, so I can change it to include
my full mail address.
>> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> index 429b5a60a1ba..b908656ce519 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.c
>> @@ -45,6 +45,9 @@
>> #define LLCC_TRP_ATTR0_CFGn(n) (0x21000 + SZ_8 * n)
>> #define LLCC_TRP_ATTR1_CFGn(n) (0x21004 + SZ_8 * n)
>>
>> +#define LLCC_TRP_SCID_DIS_CAP_ALLOC 0x21F00
>> +#define LLCC_TRP_PCB_ACT 0x21F04
>
> Use lowercase hex please. LLCC_COMMON_STATUS0 is using lowercase.
>
Ok
>> +
>> #define BANK_OFFSET_STRIDE 0x80000
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -89,6 +92,7 @@ struct llcc_slice_config {
>> struct qcom_llcc_config {
>> const struct llcc_slice_config *sct_data;
>> int size;
>> + bool need_llcc_cfg;
>> };
>>
>> static const struct llcc_slice_config sc7180_data[] = {
>> @@ -122,11 +126,13 @@ static const struct llcc_slice_config
>> sdm845_data[] = {
>> static const struct qcom_llcc_config sc7180_cfg = {
>> .sct_data = sc7180_data,
>> .size = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7180_data),
>> + .need_llcc_cfg = true,
>> };
>>
>> static const struct qcom_llcc_config sdm845_cfg = {
>> .sct_data = sdm845_data,
>> .size = ARRAY_SIZE(sdm845_data),
>> + .need_llcc_cfg = false,
>
> false is the default so just leave it out?
>
Done on purpose as I wanted to be explicit here so that
anyone reading it knows that it doesn't support configuring
in kernel. Yes the default is false but it won't hurt to be
explicit here to avoid confusion.
I fear that being explicit will mean that all SoCs will be explicit and
that's sort of useless. Does it need to be so explicit?
From what I know, the majority of the SoCs(upcoming) will have
it true so we don't have to fill them with false everywhere,
just have to do it for SDM845.
>> };
>>
>> static struct llcc_drv_data *drv_data = (void *) -EPROBE_DEFER;
>> @@ -327,6 +333,7 @@ static int qcom_llcc_cfg_program(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> u32 attr0_val;
>> u32 max_cap_cacheline;
>> u32 sz;
>> + u32 disable_cap_alloc, retain_pc;
>> int ret = 0;
>> const struct llcc_slice_config *llcc_table;
>> struct llcc_slice_desc desc;
>> @@ -369,6 +376,21 @@ static int qcom_llcc_cfg_program(struct
>> platform_device *pdev)
>> attr0_val);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>> +
>> + if (drv_data->need_llcc_config) {
>> + disable_cap_alloc =
>> llcc_table[i].dis_cap_alloc << llcc_table[i].slice_id;
>
> Can we move u32 disable_cap_alloc, retain_pc here? That would keep it
> local to this if condition. Or make llc_table[i].slice_id into a local
> variable so the shift line isn't so long? Or make the body of this
> while
> loop a new function that takes an llcc_table[i] pointer so that lines
> are easier to read?
>
The whole function qcom_llcc_cfg_program() is just a loop so
adding another function moving that loop wouldn't look good.
Agreed it's one big loop, but having a function that deals with one
"thing" in the loop is easy to reason about and read. Right now I have
to read llc_table[i] a bunch of times. Yuck.
Ok then I will move it to another function in a separate patch
before this change.
llc_table[i].slice_id is already used elsewhere in this function
and changing everywhere is not related to this patch. So I will
go with your suggestion to move disable_cap_alloc and retain_pc
to if block.
Ok.
Thanks,
Sai
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
