| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALx668W6nJkYR325BhxOXMF1z=i7mkYbh3pyBFDNoZC9NZ0dVw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:11:34 +0800
From: Pi-Cheng Chen <pi-cheng.chen@...aro.org>
To: Josh Cartwright <joshc@...com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chen Fan <fan.chen@...iatek.com>,
Howard Chen <ibanezchen@...il.com>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
"Joe.C" <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Eddie Huang <eddie.huang@...iatek.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: mediatek: Add MT8173 cpufreq driver
Hi Josh,
Thanks for reviewing.
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Josh Cartwright <joshc@...com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:27:26PM +0800, pi-cheng.chen wrote:
>> This patch implements MT8173 specific cpufreq driver with OPP table defined
>> in the driver code.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: pi-cheng.chen <pi-cheng.chen@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 6 +
>> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c | 509 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 516 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>> index 1b06fc4..25643c7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
>> @@ -132,6 +132,12 @@ config ARM_KIRKWOOD_CPUFREQ
>> This adds the CPUFreq driver for Marvell Kirkwood
>> SoCs.
>>
>> +config ARM_MT8173_CPUFREQ
>> + bool "Mediatek MT8173 CPUFreq support"
>> + depends on ARCH_MEDIATEK && REGULATOR
>
> I think you want to 'select REGULATOR' here; because REGULATOR isn't
> a user-visible option.
I am not sure but I need it to be "depends on" as other SoC cpufreq
drivers. Please check
ARM_S3C2416_CPUFREQ_VCORESCALE in drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
By the way, I would like to know more details about the visibility of
these configurable
options, would you kindly point me out some documents about it?
>
>> + help
>> + This adds the CPUFreq driver support for Mediatek MT8173 SoC.
>> +
>> config ARM_OMAP2PLUS_CPUFREQ
>> bool "TI OMAP2+"
>> depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile b/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
>> index 82a1821..da9d616 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_HIGHBANK_CPUFREQ) += highbank-cpufreq.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_IMX6Q_CPUFREQ) += imx6q-cpufreq.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_INTEGRATOR) += integrator-cpufreq.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_KIRKWOOD_CPUFREQ) += kirkwood-cpufreq.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MT8173_CPUFREQ) += mt8173-cpufreq.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_OMAP2PLUS_CPUFREQ) += omap-cpufreq.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_PXA2xx_CPUFREQ) += pxa2xx-cpufreq.o
>> obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) += pxa3xx-cpufreq.o
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..a310e72
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,509 @@
>> +/*
>> +* Copyright (c) 2015 Linaro Ltd.
>> +* Author: Pi-Cheng Chen <pi-cheng.chen@...aro.org>
>> +*
>> +* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> +* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> +* published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> +*
>> +* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> +* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> +* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
>> +* GNU General Public License for more details.
>> +*/
>> +
>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
>> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +
>> +#define MIN_VOLT_SHIFT 100000
>> +#define MAX_VOLT_SHIFT 200000
>> +
>> +#define OPP(f, vp, vs) { \
>> + .freq = f, \
>> + .vproc = vp, \
>> + .vsram = vs, \
>> + }
>> +
>> +struct mtk_cpu_opp {
>> + unsigned int freq;
>> + int vproc;
>> + int vsram;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * The struct cpu_dvfs_info holds necessary information for doing CPU DVFS of
>> + * each cluster. For Mediatek SoCs, each CPU cluster in SoC has two voltage
>> + * inputs, Vproc and Vsram. For some cluster in SoC, the two voltage inputs are
>> + * supplied by different PMICs. In this case, when scaling up/down the voltage
>> + * of Vsram and Vproc, the two voltage inputs need to be controlled under a
>> + * hardware limitation: 100mV < Vsram - Vproc < 200mV
>> + * When scaling up/down the clock frequency of a cluster, the clock source need
>> + * to be switched to another stable PLL clock temporarily, and switched back to
>> + * the original PLL after the it becomes stable at target frequency.
>> + * Hence the voltage inputs of cluster need to be set to an intermediate voltage
>> + * before the clock frequency being scaled up/down.
>> + */
>> +
>> +struct cpu_dvfs_info {
>> + cpumask_t cpus;
>> +
>> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp_tbl;
>> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *intermediate_opp;
>> + int nr_opp;
>> +
>> + struct regulator *proc_reg;
>> + struct regulator *sram_reg;
>> + struct clk *cpu_clk;
>> + struct clk *inter_pll;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * This is a temporary solution until we have new OPPv2 bindings. Therefore we
>> + * could describe the OPPs with (freq, volt, volt) tuple properly in device
>> + * tree.
>> + */
>> +
>> +/* OPP table for LITTLE cores of MT8173 */
>> +struct mtk_cpu_opp mt8173_l_opp[] = {
>
> static const?
Yes. I miss "static" here. But I need those two array to be non-const
so that I could
fix up the exact voltage values by querying the supported voltages of
regulators.
Please check the mt8173_cpufreq_cpu_opp_fixup() function below.
>
>> + OPP(507000000, 859000, 0),
>> + OPP(702000000, 908000, 0),
>> + OPP(1001000000, 983000, 0),
>> + OPP(1105000000, 1009000, 0),
>> + OPP(1183000000, 1028000, 0),
>> + OPP(1404000000, 1083000, 0),
>> + OPP(1508000000, 1109000, 0),
>> + OPP(1573000000, 1125000, 0),
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* OPP table for big cores of MT8173 */
>> +struct mtk_cpu_opp mt8173_b_opp[] = {
>
> same here?
>
>> + OPP(507000000, 828000, 928000),
>> + OPP(702000000, 867000, 967000),
>> + OPP(1001000000, 927000, 1027000),
>> + OPP(1209000000, 968000, 1068000),
>> + OPP(1404000000, 1007000, 1107000),
>> + OPP(1612000000, 1049000, 1149000),
>> + OPP(1807000000, 1089000, 1150000),
>> + OPP(1989000000, 1125000, 1150000),
>> +};
>> +
> [..]
>> +static int mtk_cpufreq_voltage_trace(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info,
>> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp)
>> +{
>> + struct regulator *proc_reg = info->proc_reg;
>> + struct regulator *sram_reg = info->sram_reg;
>> + int old_vproc, new_vproc, old_vsram, new_vsram, vsram, vproc, ret;
>> +
>> + old_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(proc_reg);
>> + old_vsram = regulator_get_voltage(sram_reg);
>> +
>> + new_vproc = opp->vproc;
>> + new_vsram = opp->vsram;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * In the case the voltage is going to be scaled up, Vsram and Vproc
>> + * need to be scaled up step by step. In each step, Vsram needs to be
>> + * set to (Vproc + 200mV) first, then Vproc is set to (Vsram - 100mV).
>> + * Repeat the step until Vsram and Vproc are set to target voltage.
>> + */
>> + if (old_vproc < new_vproc) {
>> +next_up_step:
>> + old_vsram = regulator_get_voltage(sram_reg);
>> +
>> + vsram = (new_vsram - old_vproc < MAX_VOLT_SHIFT) ?
>> + new_vsram : old_vproc + MAX_VOLT_SHIFT;
>> + vsram = get_regulator_voltage_floor(sram_reg, vsram);
>> +
>> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(sram_reg, vsram, vsram);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + vproc = (new_vsram == vsram) ?
>> + new_vproc : vsram - MIN_VOLT_SHIFT;
>> + vproc = get_regulator_voltage_ceil(proc_reg, vproc);
>> +
>> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(proc_reg, vproc, vproc);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + regulator_set_voltage(sram_reg, old_vsram, old_vsram);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (new_vproc == vproc && new_vsram == vsram)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + old_vproc = vproc;
>> + goto next_up_step;
>
> Perhaps a naive question: but, is this the correct place to do this? I
> would expect this stepping behavior to be implemented in the driver
> controlling the regulator you are consuming. It seems strange to do it
> here.
This was already discussed in the last round of this series of patches.
Please check the discussion[1]. Any suggestion would be welcomed.
Thanks.
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1905909
Best Regards,
Pi-Cheng
>
> Josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists