linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Introduce QCOM CPUFREQ Firmware bindings

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180807111237.GA1588@e107155-lin>
Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 12:12:37 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     skannan@...eaurora.org
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Amit Nischal <anischal@...eaurora.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robh@...nel.org,
        amit.kucheria@...aro.org, evgreen@...gle.com,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Introduce QCOM CPUFREQ
 Firmware bindings

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:54:24PM -0700, skannan@...eaurora.org wrote:
> On 2018-08-03 16:46, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >Quoting Taniya Das (2018-07-24 03:42:49)
> >>diff --git
> >>a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt
> >>b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt
> >>new file mode 100644
> >>index 0000000..22d4355
> >>--- /dev/null
> >>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.txt
> >>@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
> >[...]
> >>+
> >>+               CPU7: cpu@700 {
> >>+                       device_type = "cpu";
> >>+                       compatible = "qcom,kryo385";
> >>+                       reg = <0x0 0x700>;
> >>+                       enable-method = "psci";
> >>+                       next-level-cache = <&L2_700>;
> >>+                       qcom,freq-domain = <&freq_domain_table1>;
> >>+                       L2_700: l2-cache {
> >>+                               compatible = "cache";
> >>+                               next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> >>+                       };
> >>+               };
> >>+       };
> >>+
> >>+       qcom,cpufreq-hw {
> >>+               compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw";
> >>+
> >>+               clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
> >>+               clock-names = "xo";
> >>+
> >>+               #address-cells = <2>;
> >>+               #size-cells = <2>;
> >>+               ranges;
> >>+               freq_domain_table0: freq_table0 {
> >>+                       reg = <0 0x17d43000 0 0x1400>;
> >>+               };
> >>+
> >>+               freq_domain_table1: freq_table1 {
> >>+                       reg = <0 0x17d45800 0 0x1400>;
> >>+               };
> >
> >Sorry, this is just not proper DT design. The whole node should have a
> >reg property, and it should contain two (or three if we're handling the
> >L3 clk domain?) different offsets for the different power clusters. The
> >problem seems to still be that we don't have a way to map the CPUs to
> >the clk domains they're in provided by this hardware block. Making
> >subnodes is not the solution.
> 
> The problem is mapping clock domains to logical CPUs that CPUfreq uses. The
> physical CPU to logical CPU mapping can be changed by the kernel (even
> through DT if I'm not mistaken). So we need to have a way to tell in DT
> which physical CPUs are connected to which CPU freq clock domain.
> 

How about passing CPU freq clock domain id as along with phandle in
qcom,freq-domain ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep