[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID:
<SH0PR01MB0841EF813268269C2AE59372F98E2@SH0PR01MB0841.CHNPR01.prod.partner.outlook.cn>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2026 02:35:16 +0000
From: Joshua Yeong <joshua.yeong@...rfivetech.com>
To: Rahul Pathak <rahul@...mations.net>
CC: "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>, Leyfoon Tan
<leyfoon.tan@...rfivetech.com>, "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org"
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, "pjw@...nel.org" <pjw@...nel.org>,
"palmer@...belt.com" <palmer@...belt.com>, "aou@...s.berkeley.edu"
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, "alex@...ti.fr" <alex@...ti.fr>, "rafael@...nel.org"
<rafael@...nel.org>, "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>, "jms@....tenstorrent.com"
<jms@....tenstorrent.com>, "darshan.prajapati@...fochips.com"
<darshan.prajapati@...fochips.com>, "charlie@...osinc.com"
<charlie@...osinc.com>, "dfustini@....tenstorrent.com"
<dfustini@....tenstorrent.com>, "michal.simek@....com"
<michal.simek@....com>, "cyy@...self.name" <cyy@...self.name>,
"jassisinghbrar@...il.com" <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 4/5] cpufreq: Add cpufreq driver for the RISC-V RPMI
performance service group
On Monday, January 12, 2026 6:47 PM, Rahul Pathak <rahul@...mations.net> wrote:
> > +
> > +static int rpmi_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct rpmi_perf *mpxy_perf;
> > + struct rpmi_ctx *mpxy_ctx;
> > + int num_domains = 0;
> > + int ret, i;
> > +
> > + mpxy_ctx = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*mpxy_ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!mpxy_ctx)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + /* Setup mailbox client */
> > + mpxy_ctx->client.dev = dev;
> > + mpxy_ctx->client.rx_callback = NULL;
> > + mpxy_ctx->client.tx_block = false;
> > + mpxy_ctx->client.knows_txdone = true;
> > + mpxy_ctx->client.tx_tout = 0;
> > +
> > + /* Request mailbox channel */
> > + mpxy_ctx->chan = mbox_request_channel(&mpxy_ctx->client, 0);
> > + if (IS_ERR(mpxy_ctx->chan))
> > + return PTR_ERR(mpxy_ctx->chan);
> > +
> > + ret = rpmi_cpufreq_attr_setup(dev, mpxy_ctx);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "failed to verify RPMI attribute - err:%d\n", ret);
> > + goto fail_free_channel;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Get number of performance domain */
> > + ret = rpmi_perf_get_num_domains(mpxy_ctx, &num_domains);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "invalid number of perf domains - err:%d\n", ret);
> > + goto fail_free_channel;
> > + }
>
> The domain space in RPMI performance for CPU and Device is not separate and a domain can be either CPU or a Device.
> How the driver will make sure that the domains which are returned are CPU only and not the device.
I think we need to enhance the RPMI spec to include information for types of device.
What do you think?
>
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, rpmi_cpufreq_of_match);
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver rpmi_cpufreq_platdrv = {
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "riscv-rpmi-performance",
> > + .of_match_table = rpmi_cpufreq_of_match,
> > + },
> > + .probe = rpmi_cpufreq_probe,
> > + .remove = rpmi_cpufreq_remove, };
> > +
> > +module_platform_driver(rpmi_cpufreq_platdrv);
> > +
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Joshua Yeong <joshua.yeong@...rfivetech.com>");
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("CPUFreq Driver based on SBI MPXY extension");
>
> NIT: CPUFreq driver based on SBI MPXY extension and RPMI protocol -
> something like this
>
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
Powered by blists - more mailing lists