| 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: <20200615172553.GU4525@google.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:25:53 -0700
From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>
To: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
Cc: viresh.kumar@...aro.org, sboyd@...nel.org,
georgi.djakov@...aro.org, saravanak@...gle.com, nm@...com,
bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
lukasz.luba@....com, sudeep.holla@....com, smasetty@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] cpufreq: qcom: Update the bandwidth levels on
frequency change
Hi Sibi,
On Sat, Jun 06, 2020 at 03:03:31AM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> Add support to parse optional OPP table attached to the cpu node when
> the OPP bandwidth values are populated. This allows for scaling of
> DDR/L3 bandwidth levels with frequency change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sibi Sankar <sibis@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>
> v6:
> * Add global flag to distinguish between voltage update and opp add.
> Use the same flag before trying to scale ddr/l3 bw [Viresh]
> * Use dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil to grab all opps [Viresh]
> * Move dev_pm_opp_of_find_icc_paths into probe [Viresh]
>
> v5:
> * Use dev_pm_opp_adjust_voltage instead [Viresh]
> * Misc cleanup
>
> v4:
> * Split fast switch disable into another patch [Lukasz]
>
> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index fc92a8842e252..8fa6ab6e0e4b6 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> #include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> #include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/interconnect.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> @@ -30,6 +31,48 @@
>
> static unsigned long cpu_hw_rate, xo_rate;
> static struct platform_device *global_pdev;
> +static bool icc_scaling_enabled;
It seem you rely on 'icc_scaling_enabled' to be initialized to 'false'.
This works during the first initialization, but not if the 'device' is
unbound/rebound. In theory things shouldn't be different in a succesive
initialization, however for robustness the variable should be explicitly
set to 'false' somewhere in the code path (_probe(), _read_lut(), ...).
> +static int qcom_cpufreq_set_bw(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned long freq_khz)
> +{
> + unsigned long freq_hz = freq_khz * 1000;
> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> + struct device *dev;
> + int ret;
> +
> + dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> + if (!dev)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + opp = dev_pm_opp_find_freq_exact(dev, freq_hz, true);
> + if (IS_ERR(opp))
> + return PTR_ERR(opp);
> +
> + ret = dev_pm_opp_set_bw(dev, opp);
> + dev_pm_opp_put(opp);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(struct device *cpu_dev,
> + unsigned long freq_khz,
> + unsigned long volt)
> +{
> + unsigned long freq_hz = freq_khz * 1000;
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Skip voltage update if the opp table is not available */
> + if (!icc_scaling_enabled)
> + return dev_pm_opp_add(cpu_dev, freq_hz, volt);
> +
> + ret = dev_pm_opp_adjust_voltage(cpu_dev, freq_hz, volt, volt, volt);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(cpu_dev, "Voltage update failed freq=%ld\n", freq_khz);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return dev_pm_opp_enable(cpu_dev, freq_hz);
> +}
>
> static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> unsigned int index)
> @@ -39,6 +82,9 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>
> writel_relaxed(index, perf_state_reg);
>
> + if (icc_scaling_enabled)
> + qcom_cpufreq_set_bw(policy, freq);
> +
> arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> policy->cpuinfo.max_freq);
> return 0;
> @@ -89,11 +135,31 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> u32 data, src, lval, i, core_count, prev_freq = 0, freq;
> u32 volt;
> struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table;
> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> + unsigned long rate;
> + int ret;
>
> table = kcalloc(LUT_MAX_ENTRIES + 1, sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!table)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> + ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(cpu_dev);
> + if (!ret) {
> + /* Disable all opps and cross-validate against LUT */
nit: IIUC the cross-validation doesn't happen in this branch, so the
comment is a bit misleading. Maybe change it to "Disable all opps to
cross-validate against the LUT {below,later}".
> + icc_scaling_enabled = true;
> + for (rate = 0; ; rate++) {
> + opp = dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil(cpu_dev, &rate);
> + if (IS_ERR(opp))
> + break;
> +
> + dev_pm_opp_put(opp);
> + dev_pm_opp_disable(cpu_dev, rate);
> + }
> + } else if (ret != -ENODEV) {
> + dev_err(cpu_dev, "Invalid opp table in device tree\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> for (i = 0; i < LUT_MAX_ENTRIES; i++) {
> data = readl_relaxed(base + REG_FREQ_LUT +
> i * LUT_ROW_SIZE);
> @@ -112,7 +178,7 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
>
> if (freq != prev_freq && core_count != LUT_TURBO_IND) {
> table[i].frequency = freq;
> - dev_pm_opp_add(cpu_dev, freq * 1000, volt);
> + qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(cpu_dev, freq, volt);
This is the cross-validation mentioned above, right? Shouldn't it include
a check of the return value?
> dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "index=%d freq=%d, core_count %d\n", i,
> freq, core_count);
> } else if (core_count == LUT_TURBO_IND) {
> @@ -133,7 +199,8 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> if (prev->frequency == CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID) {
> prev->frequency = prev_freq;
> prev->flags = CPUFREQ_BOOST_FREQ;
> - dev_pm_opp_add(cpu_dev, prev_freq * 1000, volt);
> + qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(cpu_dev, prev_freq,
> + volt);
ditto
nit: with the updated max line length it isn't necessary anymore to break
this into multiple lines (https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/checkpatch.pl?h=v5.8-rc1#n54),
though the coding style still has the old limit.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists