lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/3] remoteproc: qcom: Hexagon resource handling
From
Date


On 11/19/2016 1:00 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 16 Nov 07:17 PST 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/8/2016 12:19 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Mon 07 Nov 04:37 PST 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>>>
>>>> Handling of clock and regulator resources as well as reset
>>>> register programing differ according to version of hexagon
>>>> dsp hardware. Different version require different resources
>>>> and different parameters for same resource. Hence it is
>>>> needed that resource handling is generic and independent of
>>>> hexagon dsp version.
>>>>
>>> It would be much easier to review this if you didn't do all three
>>> changes in the same patch, and at the same time changed the function
>>> names. There's large parts of this patch where it's not obvious what the
>>> actual changes are.
>> OK, have broken patches in very small set of function now.
>> but patches has increased from 3 to 9.
>> sorry for inconvenience caused.
> I will have a look once we have agreed on below issues.
>
> [..]
>>>> + struct regulator **active_regs;
>>> Keeping these as statically sized arrays, potentially with unused
>>> elements at the end removes the need for allocating the storage and the
>>> double pointers.
>> since i do not know how many resource of a particular type will be needed on
>> new version of new class of hexagon that is why i am working with pointers.
>> have removed many entries from above resource struct, it will lok much
>> cleaner in next patchset.
> Just pick the largest number we support right now and then if future
> versions need more we increment that number.
OK
>
>>>> struct completion start_done;
>>>> struct completion stop_done;
>>>> @@ -147,67 +150,245 @@ struct q6v5 {
>>>> phys_addr_t mpss_reloc;
>>>> void *mpss_region;
>>>> size_t mpss_size;
>>>> + struct mutex q6_lock;
>>>> + bool proxy_unvote_reg;
>>>> + bool proxy_unvote_clk;
>>> I still don't see the need for these 3 attributes.
>> I agree, Have removed them.
>>>> };
>>>> -enum {
>>>> - Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX,
>>>> - Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX,
>>>> - Q6V5_SUPPLY_MSS,
>>>> - Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL,
>>>> -};
>>>> +static int q6_regulator_init(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct regulator **reg_arr;
>>>> + int i;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_cnt) {
>>> If you keep proxy_regs and active_regs as arrays you don't need this
>>> check.
>> Agree, have removed check.
>>>> + reg_arr = devm_kzalloc(qproc->dev,
>>>> + sizeof(reg_arr) * qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_cnt,
>>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_cnt; i++) {
>>>> + reg_arr[i] = devm_regulator_get(qproc->dev,
>>>> + qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_regs[i]);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(reg_arr[i]))
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(reg_arr[i]);
>>>> + qproc->proxy_regs = reg_arr;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + if (qproc->q6_rproc_res->active_reg_cnt) {
>>>> + reg_arr = devm_kzalloc(qproc->dev,
>>>> + sizeof(reg_arr) * qproc->q6_rproc_res->active_reg_cnt,
>>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < qproc->q6_rproc_res->active_reg_cnt; i++) {
>>>> + reg_arr[i] = devm_regulator_get(qproc->dev,
>>>> + qproc->q6_rproc_res->active_regs[i]);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(reg_arr[i]))
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(reg_arr[i]);
>>>> + qproc->active_regs = reg_arr;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>> Please keep active_regs and proxy_regs as regulator_bulk_data and
>>> continue to use devm_regulator_bulk_get(), it should make this code
>>> cleaner.
>> the way i have reorganized code in next patchset i found using
>> devm_regulator_get() more convenient, can i keep using them? as i am reading
>> string one by one and based on read string filling a regulator struct with
>> its voltage and load and handle info.
> If it's cleaner, then sure
OK
>
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> -static int q6v5_regulator_init(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>>>> +static int q6_proxy_regulator_enable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>>>> {
>>>> - int ret;
>>>> + int i, j, ret = 0;
>>>> + int **reg_loadnvoltsetflag;
>>>> + int *reg_load;
>>>> + int *reg_voltage;
>>>> +
>>>> + reg_loadnvoltsetflag = qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_action;
>>>> + reg_load = qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_load;
>>>> + reg_voltage = qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_voltage;
>>> Rather then keeping these properties on int-arrays I strongly prefer
>>> that you would have a struct { uV, uA } for each regulator.
>> Have modified as per suggestion.
>>>> +
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_cnt; i++) {
>>>> + for (j = 0; j <= 1; j++) {
>>>> + if (j == 0 && *(reg_loadnvoltsetflag + i*j + j))
>>> I'm sorry, but this is not clean. Please use the fact that we're not
>>> writing assembly code and use the language to your advantage.
>> Sorry for mess, have simplified and cleaned.
>>>> + regulator_set_load(qproc->proxy_regs[i],
>>>> + reg_load[i]);
>>>> + if (j == 1 && *(reg_loadnvoltsetflag + i*j + j))
>>>> + regulator_set_voltage(qproc->proxy_regs[i],
>>>> + reg_voltage[i], INT_MAX);
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].supply = "cx";
>>>> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].supply = "mx";
>>>> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MSS].supply = "mss";
>>>> - qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].supply = "pll";
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < qproc->q6_rproc_res->proxy_reg_cnt; i++) {
>>>> + ret = regulator_enable(qproc->proxy_regs[i]);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + for (; i > 0; --i) {
>>>> + regulator_disable(qproc->proxy_regs[i]);
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>>> + }
>>> If you just keep your regulators in a regulator_bulk_data array then you
>>> can replace this with regulator_bulk_enable(proxy_reg_cnt, proxy_regs);
>> As replied above i am going with getting sigle regulator handle one time.
>> let me know if i can continue or need to change?
>>
> The reason for using the bulk operations is that the error path becomes
> cleaner, however now that I look at this again; in the event of an error
> you leave the regulators with voltage and load specified. You need to
> unroll this too.
if regulator enabled failed, i am unrolling the programmed load and
voltage setting.
but i will try to incorporate your suggestion.
>
> But I would still prefer that you specify the loads & voltages, then
> call bulk_enable() and if that fail remove all load and voltage
> requests.
OK, will try to incorporate.
>
>>>> - ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(qproc->dev,
>>>> - ARRAY_SIZE(qproc->supply), qproc->supply);
>>>> - if (ret < 0) {
>>>> - dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get supplies\n");
>>>> - return ret;
> [..]
>>>> + if (!strcmp(qproc->q6_rproc_res->q6_version, "v56")) {
>>> This would be much better as an enum than a string. But I keep wonder if
>>> this is only for v5.6 of the Hexagon - perhaps should we clamp different
>>> things on the various versions?.
>> As replied elsewhere, we need a DT entry to know which version is running,
>> or else many compatible string will be required. for "v56" there are
>> following version, so as and when we need to support a new version we will
>> require
>> a new DT entry which when defined will help to take deviation where
>> required.
>> 1.10.0
>> 1.3.0
>> 1.4.0
>> 1.5.0
>> 1.6.0
>> 1.8.0
>>
> Sorry for not seeing this before I answered in the two other places,
> perhaps we should just discuss this to end in one place...
>
> But regarding my specific comment, if you want class based handling then
> introduce:
>
> enum {
> Q6V5_CLASS5,
> Q6V5_CLASS55,
> Q5V5_CLASS56
> };
>
> Then you don't have to use strcmp() to check which class you have.
OK, may i change enum strings as per HPG?

enum {
Q6V5_5_0_0,--->8916
Q6V5_5_1_1,---->8974
Q5V56_1_5_0---->8996
};



>
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Assert QDSP6 I/O clamp, memory wordline clamp, and compiler
>>>> + * memory clamp as a software workaround to avoid high MX
>>>> + * current during LPASS/MSS restart.
>>>> + */
>>>> +
>>>> + val = readl_relaxed(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>>>> + val |= (Q6SS_CLAMP_IO | QDSP6v56_CLAMP_WL |
>>>> + QDSP6v56_CLAMP_QMC_MEM);
>>>> + writel_relaxed(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>>>> + pil_mss_restart_reg(qproc, 1);
>>> And by using the reset framework for mss_restart this will fall out of
>>> the conditional segment and the else is gone.
>> As i informed MSS RESET REGISTER was never a block control reset or BCR (a
>> term used to define those reset register which control a clock or pll ) so
>> clock control reset framework can not be used to do reset programming for
>> MSS
> But MSS RESET is a "reset" and far as this driver is concerned it should
> be abstracted by the help of the reset framework. I don't want this
> driver to care about the workings of the reset control.
>
> The peripheral resets are part of the GCC block and as such I do not see
> the problem with having the driver for the GCC block expose these
> resets, even if though it's not a BCR - and this is how we have done it
> on 8960, 8974 and 8084 so far.
I was under impression that clock code will be up streamed by clock
team, and they will go by downstream way.
i discussed again they said i can use GCC reset framework in upstream.
Will change patch accordingly.
>
>> that is why i have adopted IOREMAP based mss reset programming. it is like
>> any other register, may i know if any serious objection on using reset
>> controller framework only? i will have to add another dummy driver just to
>> do reset register programming.
>> let me know please if it is mandatory?
> I want this driver to consume a reset from a reset-controller, I do not
> see the technical reason why we cannot just add this to the driver for
> the GCC block.
Sure, will do.
>
> Regards,
> Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-21 20:30    [W:0.049 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site