linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v3] clk: starfive: pll: Fix lower rate of CPUfreq by setting PLL0 rate to 1.5GHz

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:
 <NTZPR01MB09566AB865A0266332268DC69F3DA@NTZPR01MB0956.CHNPR01.prod.partner.outlook.cn>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 07:44:36 +0000
From: Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@...rfivetech.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Michael Turquette
	<mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
	<conor@...nel.org>, Emil Renner Berthing
	<emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt
	<palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Hal Feng
	<hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, "devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] clk: starfive: pll: Fix lower rate of CPUfreq by
 setting PLL0 rate to 1.5GHz

On 03/04/2024 15:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> On 03/04/2024 09:19, Xingyu Wu wrote:
> > On 03/04/2024 0:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> On 02/04/2024 11:09, Xingyu Wu wrote:
> >>> CPUfreq supports 4 cpu frequency loads on 375/500/750/1500MHz.
> >>> But now PLL0 rate is 1GHz and the cpu frequency loads become
> >>> 333/500/500/1000MHz in fact.
> >>>
> >>> So PLL0 rate should be default set to 1.5GHz. But setting the
> >>> PLL0 rate need certain steps:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Change the parent of cpu_root clock to OSC clock.
> >>> 2. Change the divider of cpu_core if PLL0 rate is higher than
> >>>    1.25GHz before CPUfreq boot.
> >>> 3. Change the parent of cpu_root clock back to PLL0 clock.
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>
> >>> Fixes: e2c510d6d630 ("riscv: dts: starfive: Add cpu scaling for
> >>> JH7110
> >>> SoC")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Xingyu Wu <xingyu.wu@...rfivetech.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Hi Stephen and Emil,
> >>>
> >>> This patch fixes the issue about lower rate of CPUfreq[1] by setting
> >>> PLL0 rate to 1.5GHz.
> >>>
> >>> In order not to affect the cpu operation, setting the PLL0 rate need
> >>> certain steps. The cpu_root's parent clock should be changed first.
> >>> And the divider of the cpu_core clock should be set to 2 so they
> >>> won't crash when setting 1.5GHz without voltage regulation. Due to
> >>> PLL driver boot earlier than SYSCRG driver, cpu_core and cpu_root
> >>> clocks are using by ioremap().
> >>>
> >>> [1]: https://github.com/starfive-tech/VisionFive2/issues/55
> >>>
> >>> Previous patch link:
> >>> v2:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230821152915.208366-1-xingyu.wu@starfi
> >>> ve
> >>> tech.com/
> >>> v1:
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230811033631.160912-1-xingyu.wu@starfi
> >>> ve
> >>> tech.com/
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Xingyu Wu
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi         |   5 +
> >>>  .../clk/starfive/clk-starfive-jh7110-pll.c    | 102 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Please do not mix DTS and driver code. That's not really portable.
> >> DTS is being exported and used in other projects.
> >
> > OK, I will submit that in two patches.
> >
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -458,6 +535,8 @@ static int jh7110_pll_probe(struct
> >>> platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>>  	struct jh7110_pll_priv *priv;
> >>>  	unsigned int idx;
> >>>  	int ret;
> >>> +	struct device_node *np;
> >>> +	struct resource res;
> >>>
> >>>  	priv = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>  	if (!priv)
> >>> @@ -489,6 +568,29 @@ static int jh7110_pll_probe(struct
> >>> platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >>>  			return ret;
> >>>  	}
> >>>
> >>> +	priv->is_first_set = true;
> >>> +	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
> >>> +"starfive,jh7110-syscrg");
> >>
> >> Your drivers should not do it. It's fragile, hides true link/dependency.
> >> Please use phandles.
> >>
> >>
> >>> +	if (!np) {
> >>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(np);
> >>> +		dev_err(priv->dev, "failed to get syscrg node\n");
> >>> +		goto np_put;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = of_address_to_resource(np, 0, &res);
> >>> +	if (ret) {
> >>> +		dev_err(priv->dev, "failed to get syscrg resource\n");
> >>> +		goto np_put;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	priv->syscrg_base = ioremap(res.start, resource_size(&res));
> >>> +	if (!priv->syscrg_base)
> >>> +		ret = -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> Why are you mapping other device's IO? How are you going to ensure
> >> synced access to registers?
> >
> > Because setting PLL0 rate need specific steps and use the clocks of SYSCRG.
> 
> That's not a reason to map other device's IO. That could be a reason for having
> syscon or some other sort of relationship, like clock or reset.
> 
> > But SYSCRG driver also need PLL clock to be clock source when adding
> > clock providers. I tried to add SYSCRG clocks in 'clocks' property in
> > DT and use
> > clk_get() to get the clocks. But it could not run and crash. So I use
> > ioremap() instead.
> 
> So instead of properly model the relationship, you entangle the drivers even
> more.
> 
> Please come with a proper design for this. I have no clue about your hardware,
> but that looks like you are asynchronously configuring the same hardware in two
> different places.
> 
> Sorry, that's poor code.
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Hi Krzysztof,

If I use the old patch[1] like v2 and set the PLL0 default rate in the SYSCRG driver,
will it be better?

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230821152915.208366-1-xingyu.wu@starfivetech.com/

Thanks,
Xingyu Wu