linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] PM: opp: allow control of multiple clocks

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <65a4c28d-6702-3a9f-f837-1ea69a428777@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 19 May 2022 10:03:14 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Taniya Das <tdas@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/6] PM: opp: allow control of multiple clocks

On 19/05/2022 01:57, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Viresh Kumar (2022-05-10 22:06:43)
>> On 10-05-22, 15:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/05/2022 06:40, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> IMHO, this is broken by design. I can easily see that someone wants to
>>>> have few variants of all other frequencies for the same frequency of
>>>> the so called "main" clock, i.e. multiple OPPs with same "main" freq
>>>> value.  I don't think we can mark the clocks "main" or otherwise as
>>>> easily for every platform.
>>>>
>>>> Stephen, any inputs on this ?
>>>
>>> In such case, matching opps by frequency would be a quite different API.
>>> The drivers can use now:
>>> https://github.com/krzk/linux/commit/ebc31798494fcc66389ae409dce6d9489c16156a#diff-b6370444c32afa2e55d9b6150f355ba6f4d20c5ed5da5399ea8295d323de8267R1200
>>>
>>> If you assume that this frequency can be used for multiple OPPs, then
>>> the API should be different. Something like:
>>> int dev_pm_opp_set_rate(struct device *dev, unsigned long *target_freqs,
>>>                         size_t num_freqs);
>>
>> At this point I am not looking for a new API, but just continuing the discussion
>> to understand what different hardwares want or look like.
> 
> I think for UFS they don't want a rate API at all. They want to set a
> "clock gear" and that translates into whatever that means for OPP; be it
> a clk frequency (or two), an interconnect bandwidth (or multiple?), and some
> performance state (or many) for any power domains. I think the gear
> design is built into the UFS spec. If it isn't then I'm misremembering
> things.

Yes, true. The clock frequencies are still changed with each gear, but
in general the UFS indeed operates on gear concept.

Best regards,
Krzysztof