On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Thomas Abraham <ta.omasab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Quoting Thomas Abraham (2014-01-18 04:10:51) >>> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> On some platforms such as the Samsung Exynos, changing the frequency >>> of the CPU clock requires changing the frequency of the PLL that is >>> supplying the CPU clock. To change the frequency of the PLL, the CPU >>> clock is temporarily reparented to another parent clock. >>> >>> The clock frequency of this temporary parent clock could be much higher >>> than the clock frequency of the PLL at the time of reparenting. Due >>> to the temporary increase in the CPU clock speed, the CPU (and any other >>> components in the CPU clock domain such as dividers, mux, etc.) have to >>> to be operated at a higher voltage level, called the safe voltage level. >>> This patch adds optional support to temporarily switch to a safe voltage >>> level during CPU frequency transitions. >>> >>> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> I'm not a fan of this change. This corner case should be abstracted away >> somehow. I had talked to Chander Kayshap previously about handling >> voltage changes in clock notifier callbacks, which then renders any >> voltage change as a trivial part of the clock rate transition. That >> means that this "safe voltage" thing could be handled automagically >> without any additional code in the CPUfreq driver. >> >> There are two nice ways to do this with the clock framework. First is >> explicit re-parenting with voltage scaling done in the clock rate-change >> notifiers: >> >> clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, temp_parent); >> /* implicit voltage scaling to "safe voltage" happens above */ >> clk_set_rate(pll, some_rate); >> clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, pll); >> /* implicit voltage scaling to nominal OPP voltage happens above */ >> >> The above sequence would require a separate exnyos CPUfreq driver, due >> to the added clk_set_parent logic. >> >> The second way to do this is to abstract the clk re-muxing logic out >> into the clk driver, which would allow cpufreq-cpu0 to be used for the >> exynos chips. > > This is the approach this patch series takes (patch 2/7). The clock > re-muxing logic is handled by a clock driver code. The difference from > what you suggested is that the safe voltage (that may be optionally) > required before doing the re-muxing is handled here in cpufreq-cpu0 > driver. Right, I understand the approach taken in this series and I'm not sure it is the right one. Why does the clock driver handle the remuxing if it is a functional dependency of the ARM core? As far as I can tell the remux does not happen because it is necessary to generate the required clock rate, but because we don't want to run the ARM core out of spec for a short time while the PLL relocks. Assuming I have that part of it right, I prefer for the parent mux operation to be a part of the CPUfreq driver's .target callback instead of hidden away in the clock driver. A common pattern I'm seeing for the last 18 months is code consolidation for the sake of code consolidation and it is not always a good thing. Having hardware-specific machine drivers under drivers/cpufreq/ is the right way to go, and we should only consolidate a driver to cpufreq-cpu0 if it makes sense. > > The safe voltage setup can be done in the notifier as you suggested. > But, doing that in cpufreq-cpu0 driver will help other platforms reuse > this feature if required. Also, if done here, the regulator handling > is localized in this driver which otherwise would need to be handled > in two places, cpufreq-cpu0 driver and the clock notifier. The notifiers are reusable across other platforms. And the notifier can be entirely set up within the cpufreq driver. Code location is not a problem. See this RFC series: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/7/110 > > So I tend to prefer the approach in this patch but I am willing to > consider any suggestions. Shawn, it would be helpful if you could let > us know your thoughts on this. I am almost done with testing the v3 of > this series and want to post it so if there are any objections to the > changes in this patch, please let me know. Well I wonder if the whole approach could be more generalized. The DT bindings for CPU frequencies could be used by any platform instead of being Exynos-specific. We could construct a binding which captures an arbitrary clock sub-tree snapshot. By that I mean a DT binding in which any number of clocks and their parents and rates could be specified in a table. Separately we could have a binding that links a given clock at a given rate to some specified regulator and voltage. So in this way the bindings are re-usable. These DT ideas should be considered separately from the CPUfreq notes outlined above, and I will respond to patch #3 in this series once I have a chance. Thanks, Mike > > Thanks, > Thomas. > >> >> I'm more a fan of explicitly listing the Exact Steps for the cpu opp >> transition in a separate exynos-specific CPUfreq driver, but that's >> probably an unpopular view. >> >> Regards, >> Mike >> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt | 7 ++++ >>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++-- >>> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt >>> index f055515..37453ab 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt >>> @@ -19,6 +19,12 @@ Optional properties: >>> - cooling-min-level: >>> - cooling-max-level: >>> Please refer to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal.txt. >>> +- safe-opp: Certain platforms require that during a opp transition, >>> + a system should not go below a particular opp level. For such systems, >>> + this property specifies the minimum opp to be maintained during the >>> + opp transitions. The safe-opp value is a tuple with first element >>> + representing the safe frequency and the second element representing the >>> + safe voltage. >>> >>> Examples: >>> >>> @@ -36,6 +42,7 @@ cpus { >>> 396000 950000 >>> 198000 850000 >>> >; >>> + safe-opp = <396000 950000> >>> clock-latency = <61036>; /* two CLK32 periods */ >>> #cooling-cells = <2>; >>> cooling-min-level = <0>; >>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c >>> index 0c12ffc..075d3d1 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c >>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c >>> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ >>> >>> static unsigned int transition_latency; >>> static unsigned int voltage_tolerance; /* in percentage */ >>> +static unsigned long safe_frequency; >>> +static unsigned long safe_voltage; >>> >>> static struct device *cpu_dev; >>> static struct clk *cpu_clk; >>> @@ -64,17 +66,30 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index) >>> volt_old = regulator_get_voltage(cpu_reg); >>> } >>> >>> - pr_debug("%u MHz, %ld mV --> %u MHz, %ld mV\n", >>> + pr_debug("\n\n%u MHz, %ld mV --> %u MHz, %ld mV\n", >>> old_freq / 1000, volt_old ? volt_old / 1000 : -1, >>> new_freq / 1000, volt ? volt / 1000 : -1); >>> >>> /* scaling up? scale voltage before frequency */ >>> - if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && new_freq > old_freq) { >>> + if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && new_freq > old_freq && >>> + new_freq >= safe_frequency) { >>> ret = regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg, volt, tol); >>> if (ret) { >>> pr_err("failed to scale voltage up: %d\n", ret); >>> return ret; >>> } >>> + } else if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && old_freq < safe_frequency) { >>> + /* >>> + * the scaled up voltage level for the new_freq is lower >>> + * than the safe voltage level. so set safe_voltage >>> + * as the intermediate voltage level and revert it >>> + * back after the frequency has been changed. >>> + */ >>> + ret = regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg, safe_voltage, tol); >>> + if (ret) { >>> + pr_err("failed to set safe voltage: %d\n", ret); >>> + return ret; >>> + } >>> } >>> >>> ret = clk_set_rate(cpu_clk, freq_exact); >>> @@ -86,7 +101,8 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index) >>> } >>> >>> /* scaling down? scale voltage after frequency */ >>> - if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && new_freq < old_freq) { >>> + if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && >>> + (new_freq < old_freq || new_freq < safe_frequency)) { >>> ret = regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg, volt, tol); >>> if (ret) { >>> pr_err("failed to scale voltage down: %d\n", ret); >>> @@ -116,6 +132,8 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver cpu0_cpufreq_driver = { >>> >>> static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> { >>> + const struct property *prop; >>> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp; >>> struct device_node *np; >>> int ret; >>> >>> @@ -165,13 +183,24 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> goto out_put_node; >>> } >>> >>> + prop = of_find_property(np, "safe-opp", NULL); >>> + if (prop) { >>> + if (prop->value && (prop->length / sizeof(u32)) == 2) { >>> + const __be32 *val; >>> + val = prop->value; >>> + safe_frequency = be32_to_cpup(val++); >>> + safe_voltage = be32_to_cpup(val); >>> + } else { >>> + pr_err("invalid safe-opp level specified\n"); >>> + } >>> + } >>> + >>> of_property_read_u32(np, "voltage-tolerance", &voltage_tolerance); >>> >>> if (of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-latency", &transition_latency)) >>> transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL; >>> >>> if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg)) { >>> - struct dev_pm_opp *opp; >>> unsigned long min_uV, max_uV; >>> int i; >>> >>> -- >>> 1.6.6.rc2 >>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |