Message-ID: <CAFBinCATAwR3RvA3dBkJ4B97tecBTE58=A-OeTKvWhwhodZemA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jan 2020 22:56:30 +0100
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     yuq825@...il.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, robh@...nel.org,
        tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com, airlied@...ux.ie,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, steven.price@....com,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, wens@...e.org,
        alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com, daniel@...ll.ch,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/1] drm/lima: Add optional devfreq support

Hi Robin,

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:55 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-12-31 4:47 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 5:40 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019-12-31 2:17 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>> Hi Robin,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 1:47 AM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2019-12-29 11:19 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Robin,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:58 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2019-12-27 5:37 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>>>>>> Most platforms with a Mali-400 or Mali-450 GPU also have support for
> >>>>>>> changing the GPU clock frequency. Add devfreq support so the GPU clock
> >>>>>>> rate is updated based on the actual GPU usage when the
> >>>>>>> "operating-points-v2" property is present in the board.dts.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The actual devfreq code is taken from panfrost_devfreq.c and modified so
> >>>>>>> it matches what the lima hardware needs:
> >>>>>>> - a call to dev_pm_opp_set_clkname() during initialization because there
> >>>>>>>       are two clocks on Mali-4x0 IPs. "core" is the one that actually clocks
> >>>>>>>       the GPU so we need to control it using devfreq.
> >>>>>>> - locking when reading or writing the devfreq statistics because (unlike
> >>>>>>>       than panfrost) we have multiple PP and GP IRQs which may finish jobs
> >>>>>>>       concurrently.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I gave this a quick try on my RK3328, and the clock scaling indeed kicks
> >>>>>> in nicely on the glmark2 scenes that struggle, however something appears
> >>>>>> to be missing in terms of regulator association, as the appropriate OPP
> >>>>>> voltages aren't reflected in the GPU supply (fortunately the initial
> >>>>>> voltage seems close enough to that of the highest OPP not to cause major
> >>>>>> problems, on my box at least). With panfrost on RK3399 I do see the
> >>>>>> supply voltage scaling accordingly, but I don't know my way around
> >>>>>> devfreq well enough to know what matters in the difference :/
> >>>>> first of all: thank you for trying this out! :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> does your kernel include commit 221bc77914cbcc ("drm/panfrost: Use
> >>>>> generic code for devfreq") for your panfrost test?
> >>>>> if I understand the devfreq API correct then I suspect with that
> >>>>> commit panfrost also won't change the voltage anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, you're quite right - I was already considering that change as
> >>>> ancient history, but indeed it's only in 5.5-rc, while that board is
> >>>> still on 5.4.y release kernels. No wonder I couldn't make sense of how
> >>>> the (current) code could possibly be working :)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll try the latest -rc kernel tomorrow to confirm (now that PCIe is
> >>>> hopefully fixed), but I'm already fairly confident you've called it
> >>>> correctly.
> >>> I just tested it with the lima driver (by undervolting the GPU by
> >>> 0.05V) and it seems that dev_pm_opp_set_regulators is really needed.
> >>> I'll fix this in the next version of this patch and also submit a fix
> >>> for panfrost (I won't be able to test that though, so help is
> >>> appreciated in terms of testing :))
> >>
> >> Yeah, I started hacking something up for panfrost yesterday, but at the
> >> point of realising the core OPP code wants refactoring to actually
> >> handle optional regulators without spewing errors, decided that was
> >> crossing the line into "work" and thus could wait until next week :D
> > I'm not sure what you mean, dev_pm_opp_set_regulators uses
> > regulator_get_optional.
> > doesn't that mean that it is optional already?
>
> Indeed it does call regulator_get_optional(), but it then goes on to
> treat the absence of a supposedly-optional regulator as a hard failure.
> It doesn't seem very useful having a nice abstracted interface if users
> still end up have to dance around and duplicate half the parsing in
> order to work out whether it's worth calling or not - far better IMO if
> it could just successfully set/put zero regulators in the cases where
> the OPPs are behind a firmware/mailbox DVFS interface rather than
> explicit in-kernel clock/regulator control.
thank you for the explanation
I'll experience this case on newer Amlogic SoCs where regulators are
hidden behind SCPI firmware. so far I have only tested the case
without OPP-table on those SoCs.

> That said, given that I think the current lima/panfrost users should all
> be relatively simple with either 0 or 1 regulator, you could probably
> just special-case -ENODEV and accept a spurious error message sometimes
> for the sake of an immediate fix, then we can make general improvements
> to the interface separately afterwards.
OK, I'll be working on this next week again
if you get to fix panfrost earlier then please Cc me so we don't duplicate work


Martin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists