[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7hwnfv4hfr.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 11:13:12 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To: Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org
Cc: matthias.bgg@...il.com, jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com,
roger.lu@...iatek.com, hsinyi@...gle.com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
Project_Global_Chrome_Upstream_Group@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 13/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Link CCI device to CPU
Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:54 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@...iatek.com> writes:
>>
>> > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
>> >
>> > In some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8183, CPU and CCI share the same
>> > power
>> > supplies. Cpufreq needs to check if CCI devfreq exists and wait
>> > until
>> > CCI devfreq ready before scaling frequency.
>> >
>> > - Add is_ccifreq_ready() to link CCI device to CPI, and CPU will
>> > start
>> > DVFS when CCI is ready.
>> > - Add platform data for MT8183.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@...iatek.com>
>>
>> The checks here are not enough, and will lead to unexpected behavior.
>> IIUC, before doing DVFS, you're checking:
>>
>> 1) if the "cci" DT node is present and
>> 2) if the driver for that device is bound
>>
>> If both those conditions are not met, you don't actually fail, you
>> just
>> silently do nothing in ->set_target(). As Angelo pointed out also,
>> this
>> is not a good idea, and will be rather confusing to users.
>>
>> The same thing would happen if the cci DT node was present, but the
>> CCI
>> devfreq driver was disabled. Silent failure would also be quite
>> unexpected behavior. Similarily, if the cci DT node is not present
>> at
>> all (like it is in current upstream DT), this CPUfreq driver will
>> silently do nothing. Not good.
>>
>> So, this patch needs to handle several scenarios:
>>
>> 1) CCI DT node not present
>>
>> In this case, the driver should still operate normally. With no CCI
>> node, or driver there's no conflict.
>>
>> 2) CCI DT present/enabled but not yet bound
>>
>> In this case, you could return -EAGAIN as suggested by Angelo, or
>> maybe
>> better, it should do a deferred probe.
>>
>> 3) CCI DT present, but driver disabled
>>
>> This case is similar to (1), this driver should continue to work.
>>
>> Kevin
>
> Hello Kevin and Angelo,
>
> In my review, if we do not get the link or the link status is not
> correct between cci and cpufreq in target_index, I think it will never
> established again for this link.
> Because it's not checked in probe stage.
>
> So I think we just need to deal with the issue without cci device, and
> don't expect the link between cci and cpufreq will be connected again.
>
> If I am wrong, please correct me.
I don't fully understand your questions, but I think what your getting
at suggest that you might need to use deferred probe to handle the case
where the ordering of CCI and cpufreq probing is not predictable.
Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists