On 04/16/2013 10:07 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Andrii Tseglytskyi (2013-04-16 05:40:44)
On 04/16/2013 12:53 AM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
In addition to Mike's comments (which I completely agree with), it would
be very helfpul to see how this is actually used. e.g, how the
regulators are chained together, how the proper ordering is managed,
etc. etc.
We would like to handle voltage scaling in the following way:
I expanded the example below to include the SR AVS regulator.
cpufreq_cpu0
clk_set_rate(cpu0)
|
|-->set_voltage(ABB regulator)
|
|-->set_voltage(AVS)
|
|-->set_voltage(smps123 regulator)
Hi Andrii,
Why was regulator chaining chosen over a simple sequence of calls to
regulator_set_voltage? Instead of nested calls into the regulator
framework, why don't you just make the calls serially? E.g:
regulator_set_voltage(abb_reg, foo_volt);
regulator_set_voltage(avs_reg, bar_volt);
regulator_set_voltage(smps123_reg, baz_volt);
It is still to be determined where these calls originate from; maybe
from clock notifiers, maybe directly from the cpufreq driver's .target()
callback, or maybe somewhere else. Regardless, I do not see why
regulator chaining is truly necessary here. You are just calling
regulator_set_voltage in sequence on a few regulators, right?
I think it would help me a lot to understand why regulator chaining is a
requirement for this to work properly.
Thanks,
Mike
Hi Mike, Kevin
I'd like to provide some explanation regarding proposed TI DVFS design
which we
would like to follow (regulator chaining is part of it).
The following two patch series was intended to prove the possibility of its
implementation:
- this one 'ARM: OMAP3+: Introduce ABB driver"
- and http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg90022.html -
[RFC v1 0/1] introduce regulator chain locking scheme
but, seems, we started to make it public from "tail" instead of 'head"
- sorry for that.
While trying to move forward with TI DVFS we've taken into account following
major points:
- only DT should be used to configure DVFS;
- no xxx_initcall, cpu_is_xx() function should be used;
- DVFS should be scalable to fit wide SoC/platform’s and
multiplatform kernel requirements;
- minimize creation of TI specific API;
Now, there are two entry points for DVFS in kernel:
- CPUFreq - currently it's been decided to use cpufreq-cpu0 for
all OMAPs in Main line;
- CCF callbacks - have RFC DVFS implementation introduced here
http://lwn.net/Articles/540422/.
In both cases, the only one regulator need to be provided for CCF
or CPUFreq for voltage changing proposes, so DVFS can done
in the following way:
|------------| |------------|
--| RegulatorY |<--| DVFS |
|------------| |------------|
\ \
\ \_____________________________
\ \
|-------------------| |---------------| |---------|
--| RegulatorX (PMIC) |--| Regulator AVS |--| ABB LDO |--
|-------------------| |---------------| |---------|
/|\ |
|______________________|
Voltage adjustment
1) The following use-cases have been taken into account:
- SoC/Platform don't need ABB/AVS (supports MPU OPPLOW/OPPNOM for example) -
any regulator (VC-VP/I2C/SPI/GPIO ..) may be connected to DVFS
- SoC/Platform need ABB -
build chain in DT device->CCF->abb_regulator->any
regulator(VC-VP/I2C/SPI..)
- SoC/Platform need ABB+AVS -
build chain in DT device->CCF->abb_regulator->avsX->any
regulator(VC-VP/I2C..)
2) Implementation of each part of Voltage scale chain as Regulator will
allow:
- add each item one by one;
- don't expose too much of custom TI API;
- handle multi-voltage scaling requests to one rail (ganged rails)
automatically
(handled by regulator FW already).
3) The "regulator chaining" will allow:
- easily configure DVFS form DT depending on current SoC/platform needs
(using xxx-supply standard binding in DT);
- continue use cpufreq-cpu0 for all OMAP to scale MPU domain;
- use RFC DVFS implementation from http://lwn.net/Articles/540422/ for other
domains (with some modifications - the most difficult thing will be
multi-freq
requests handling to one clock).
In case, if "regulator chaining" approach is not accepted:
- yes, it's possible to create some "Super" TI regulator which will
handle ABB+AVS+VC/VP for most of current TI SoCs.
- No, for the newest TI SoCs (like DRA7xxx without VC/VP) any regulator
can be
used as power supply (I2C/SPI/GPIO) and ABB is needed.
a) As result, it will be impossible to use cpufreq-cpu0 driver for it,
at least, and will need to drop cpufreq-cpu0 support for OMAPs
and roll-back to omap-cpufreq.
b) for other domains it's possible to create omap_dvfs.c in the similar
way as it done in dvfs.c and hack it to handle ABB+AVS+I2C regulator.
- will need to add custom TI bindings to handle SoC/Platform dependent
configuration;
Thanks for you time.
Regards
-grygorii
This simple model will be extended to handle AVS as a part of the chain.
smps123 regulator may be changed to VP/VC regulator.
Following example is from integration branch, which already has smps123
regulator.
It demonstrates an example of linkage to chain. ABB regulator is linked
with smps123 and cpu0 inside device tree.
cpu0 calls set_voltage() function for ABB, and then ABB calls
set_voltage() function for smps123 to do actual voltage scaling.
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
index bb5ee70..c8cbbee 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap5.dtsi
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
cpus {
cpu@0 {
compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
- cpu0-supply = <&smps123_reg>;
+ cpu0-supply = <&abb_mpu>;
operating-points = <
/* kHz uV */
/* Only for Nominal Samples */
@@ -94,6 +94,7 @@
reg = <0x4ae07cdc 0x8>,
<0x4ae06014 0x4>;
ti,tranxdone_status_mask = <0x80>;
+ avs-supply = <&smps123_reg>;
operating-points = <
/* uV ABB */
880000 0
This RFC patch series is verified together with:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2445091/
Kevin, what do you think about this model in general? Does it fit to
regulator framework?
Thank you.
Regards,
Andrii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
