Re: [PATCH 1/1] clk: renesas: Mark concerned clocks as "ignore_unused"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Geert,
Thanks for your quick answer !
Hi Aymeric,

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 4:00 PM Aymeric Aillet <aymeric.aillet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
In order to avoid Linux from gating clocks that are used by
another OS running at the same time (eg. RTOS), we are adding
the "CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED" flag to the concerned clocks.

As for now, list of clocks to be flagged have been completed
depending of features that are supported by Renesas SoCs/boards
port in Zephyr RTOS.

Signed-off-by: Aymeric Aillet <aymeric.aillet@xxxxxxx>
Thanks for your patch!

--- a/drivers/clk/renesas/r8a7795-cpg-mssr.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/r8a7795-cpg-mssr.c
@@ -288,6 +288,18 @@ static struct mssr_mod_clk r8a7795_mod_clks[] __initdata = {
         DEF_MOD("scu-src0",             1031,   MOD_CLK_ID(1017)),
  };

+static const unsigned int r8a7795_ignore_unused_mod_clks[] __initconst = {
+       MOD_CLK_ID(206),        /* SCIF1 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(303),        /* CMT0 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(310),        /* SCIF2 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(523),        /* PWM */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(906),        /* GPIO6 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(907),        /* GPIO5 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(916),        /* CAN0 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(929),        /* I2C2 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(927),        /* I2C4 */
All of this is board-specific, so it cannot be handled in the SoC
clock driver.

E.g. scif2 is the main serial console for Linux on the Salvator-X(S)
and ULCB development
boards.
Pwm, gpio6, gpio5, i2c2, and i2c4 are used on Salvator-X(S).
I2c2 and i2c4 are also used on ULCB.
Scif1 and can0 are used on the KingFisher extension board for ULCB.

True, my cases were specific boards we are (or will) support in Zephyr OS.

I didn't though about what would happen on other boards with the same SoC while testing, my bad.


--- a/drivers/clk/renesas/r8a779f0-cpg-mssr.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/r8a779f0-cpg-mssr.c
@@ -168,6 +168,12 @@ static const struct mssr_mod_clk r8a779f0_mod_clks[] __initconst = {
         DEF_MOD("ufs",          1514,   R8A779F0_CLK_S0D4_HSC),
  };

+static const unsigned int r8a779f0_ignore_unused_mod_clks[] __initconst = {
+       MOD_CLK_ID(702),        /* SCIF0 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(704),        /* SCIF3 */
+       MOD_CLK_ID(915),        /* PFC0 */
E.g. scif0 is available for use by Linux on the Spider development board.

--- a/drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.h
+++ b/drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.h
@@ -140,6 +140,10 @@ struct cpg_mssr_info {
         unsigned int num_mod_clks;
         unsigned int num_hw_mod_clks;

+       /* Module Clocks that should not be gated */
+       const unsigned int *ignore_unused_mod_clks;
+       unsigned int num_ignore_unused_mod_clks;
+
         /* Critical Module Clocks that should not be disabled */
         const unsigned int *crit_mod_clks;
         unsigned int num_crit_mod_clks;
Even if this was considered a good solution, why couldn't these be
added to the existing crit_mod_clks[] array?
When working on this I understood that critical clocks were not only preserved but were also managed differently at boot. My point was only to preserve these form gating so I though that marking them as critical was a bit overkill. My understanding of the difference between critical and unused clocks is maybe not the good one !

Fortunately, the Renesas SoC developers thought about this use case:
R-Car H3 has both System (SMSTPCRn) and Realtime  (RMSTPCRn) Module
Stop Control Registers, and a module clock is not gated unless it is
stopped in both sets.  Linux uses the System set, while an RTOS like
Zephyr running on the Cortex-R CPU core should use the Realtime set.
Note that that mechanism does not protect against both OSes changing
e.g. a divider for a parent clock.

R-Car S4-8 only has a single set of Module Stop Control Register
(MSTPCRn), but it does support multiple domains instead, and has Domain
x Write Access Control Register (DxWACR_yyy) to control access.
I started working on this for an S4 based board as we are not yet supporting multiple domain control on our Zephyr support.

Concerning Gen3 SoCs, you are right, we are already using RMSTPCRn module on our H3 SoC implementation so this part of my patch is useless anyway !

I'll keep this patch on my side while working on multiple domains support on our Gen4 Zephyr support.


Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                         Geert

Thanks again for your answer.

Regards,

Aymeric


--
Regards,
Aymeric Aillet - Embedded system engineer - IoT.bzh
aymeric.aillet@xxxxxxx - www.iot.bzh





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux