On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 2:29 AM Asutosh Das (asd) <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/24/2019 10:22 PM, Evan Green wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:02 PM Asutosh Das <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Adapt to the new ICB framework for bus bandwidth voting. > >> > >> This requires the source/destination port ids. > >> Also this requires a tuple of values. > >> > >> The tuple is for two different paths - from UFS master > >> to BIMC slave. The other is from CPU master to UFS slave. > >> This tuple consists of the average and peak bandwidth. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Asutosh Das <asutoshd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> .../devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt | 12 ++ > >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.c | 234 ++++++++++++++++----- > >> drivers/scsi/ufs/ufs-qcom.h | 20 ++ > >> 3 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt > >> index a99ed55..94249ef 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.txt > >> @@ -45,6 +45,18 @@ Optional properties: > >> Note: If above properties are not defined it can be assumed that the supply > >> regulators or clocks are always on. > >> > >> +* Following bus parameters are required: > >> +interconnects > >> +interconnect-names > >> +- Please refer to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interconnect/ > >> + for more details on the above. > >> +qcom,msm-bus,name - string describing the bus path > >> +qcom,msm-bus,num-cases - number of configurations in which ufs can operate in > >> +qcom,msm-bus,num-paths - number of paths to vote for > >> +qcom,msm-bus,vectors-KBps - Takes a tuple <ib ab>, <ib ab> (2 tuples for 2 num-paths) > >> + The number of these entries *must* be same as > >> + num-cases. > > > > I think we can do away with all of the qcom* ones, right? This should > > be achievable with just interconnects and interconnect-names. > Let me give that a bit more thought - though I'm not sure how that'd work. >From the downstream kernel that I have, it looks like these are basically used to define the bandwidth values for each gear/mode in UFS. My understanding is that the DT folks generally balk at having configuration data in the device tree. I'm hopeful that we can have a snippet of code that actually computes the required bandwidth for a certain combination of gear speed and lanes. But if that is somehow not possible, this can at worst be a table in code of bandwidths[gear]. But let's try for the computation first. > > > > > Also, is this patch based on a downstream tree? I don't recognize a > > lot of the context. We'll need a patch that's based on an upstream > > tree. > This was developed on the internal Chrome AU and ported to ufs-next. > Let me check internally on this anyway. > Whoops, you're right, the context I was confused about does appear to be upstream. I was unaware there was dangling code to the old downstream bus scaling stuff in the upstream kernel. I think we should get rid of all of that and start fresh. Also, like the dangling downstream code was, the new stuff should probably be surrounded by ifdefs for the new interconnect core. I also think we don't really need the max_bus_bw thing, so when we rip out all the downstream leftovers we don't need to put that back in. -Evan
