lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V5 11/18] clk: tegra210: Add support for Tegra210 clocks
From
Date
16.07.2019 21:30, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>
> On 7/16/19 11:25 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 16.07.2019 21:19, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>> On 7/16/19 9:50 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
>>>> On 7/16/19 8:00 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> 16.07.2019 11:06, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:24:26PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>>>>>>> OK, Will add to CPUFreq driver...
>>>>>>>>> The other thing that also need attention is that T124 CPUFreq
>>>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>>>> implicitly relies on DFLL driver to be probed first, which is
>>>>>>>>> icky.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Should I add check for successful dfll clk register explicitly in
>>>>>>>> CPUFreq driver probe and defer till dfll clk registers?
>>>>> Probably you should use the "device links". See [1][2] for the
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2.1/source/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c#L2383
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/device_link.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Return EPROBE_DEFER instead of EINVAL if device_link_add() fails. And
>>>>> use of_find_device_by_node() to get the DFLL's device, see [3].
>>>>>
>>>>> [3]
>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/devfreq/tegra20-devfreq.c#n100
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Will go thru and add...
>> Looks like I initially confused this case with getting orphaned clock.
>> I'm now seeing that the DFLL driver registers the clock and then
>> clk_get(dfll) should be returning EPROBE_DEFER until DFLL driver is
>> probed, hence everything should be fine as-is and there is no real need
>> for the 'device link'. Sorry for the confusion!
>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't follow the mail thread. Just regarding the DFLL
>>>>>>> part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you know it, the DFLL clock is one of the CPU clock sources and
>>>>>>> integrated with DVFS control logic with the regulator. We will not
>>>>>>> switch
>>>>>>> CPU to other clock sources once we switched to DFLL. Because the
>>>>>>> CPU has
>>>>>>> been regulated by the DFLL HW with the DVFS table (CVB or OPP table
>>>>>>> you see
>>>>>>> in the driver.). We shouldn't reparent it to other sources with
>>>>>>> unknew
>>>>>>> freq/volt pair. That's not guaranteed to work. We allow switching to
>>>>>>> open-loop mode but different sources.
>>>>> Okay, then the CPUFreq driver will have to enforce DFLL freq to PLLP's
>>>>> rate before switching to PLLP in order to have a proper CPU voltage.
>>>> PLLP freq is safe to work for any CPU voltage. So no need to enforce
>>>> DFLL freq to PLLP rate before changing CCLK_G source to PLLP during
>>>> suspend
>>>>
>>> Sorry, please ignore my above comment. During suspend, need to change
>>> CCLK_G source to PLLP when dfll is in closed loop mode first and then
>>> dfll need to be set to open loop.
>> Okay.
>>
>>>>>>> And I don't exactly understand why we need to switch to PLLP in CPU
>>>>>>> idle
>>>>>>> driver. Just keep it on CL-DVFS mode all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In SC7 entry, the dfll suspend function moves it the open-loop
>>>>>>> mode. That's
>>>>>>> all. The sc7-entryfirmware will handle the rest of the sequence to
>>>>>>> turn off
>>>>>>> the CPU power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In SC7 resume, the warmboot code will handle the sequence to turn on
>>>>>>> regulator and power up the CPU cluster. And leave it on PLL_P. After
>>>>>>> resuming to the kernel, we re-init DFLL, restore the CPU clock
>>>>>>> policy (CPU
>>>>>>> runs on DFLL open-loop mode) and then moving to close-loop mode.
>>>>> The DFLL is re-inited after switching CCLK to DFLL parent during of
>>>>> the
>>>>> early clocks-state restoring by CaR driver. Hence instead of having
>>>>> odd
>>>>> hacks in the CaR driver, it is much nicer to have a proper
>>>>> suspend-resume sequencing of the device drivers. In this case CPUFreq
>>>>> driver is the driver that enables DFLL and switches CPU to that clock
>>>>> source, which means that this driver is also should be responsible for
>>>>> management of the DFLL's state during of suspend/resume process. If
>>>>> CPUFreq driver disables DFLL during suspend and re-enables it during
>>>>> resume, then looks like the CaR driver hacks around DFLL are not
>>>>> needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DFLL part looks good to me. BTW, change the patch subject to
>>>>>>> "Add
>>>>>>> suspend-resume support" seems more appropriate to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> To clarify this, the sequences for DFLL use are as follows (assuming
>>>>>> all
>>>>>> required DFLL hw configuration has been done)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch to DFLL:
>>>>>> 0) Save current parent and frequency
>>>>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
>>>>>> 2) Enable DFLL
>>>>>> 3) Change cclk_g parent to DFLL
>>>>>> For OVR regulator:
>>>>>> 4) Change PWM output pin from tristate to output
>>>>>> 5) Enable DFLL PWM output
>>>>>> For I2C regulator:
>>>>>> 4) Enable DFLL I2C output
>>>>>> 6) Program DFLL to closed loop mode
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switch away from DFLL:
>>>>>> 0) Change cclk_g parent to PLLP so the CPU frequency is ok for any
>>>>>> vdd_cpu voltage
>>>>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
>>>>>>
>>> I see during switch away from DFLL (suspend), cclk_g parent is not
>>> changed to PLLP before changing dfll to open loop mode.
>>>
>>> Will add this ...
>> The CPUFreq driver switches parent to PLLP during the probe, similar
>> should be done on suspend.
>>
>> I'm also wondering if it's always safe to switch to PLLP in the probe.
>> If CPU is running on a lower freq than PLLP, then some other more
>> appropriate intermediate parent should be selected.
>>
> CPU parents are PLL_X, PLL_P, and dfll. PLL_X always runs at higher rate
> so switching to PLL_P during CPUFreq probe prior to dfll clock enable
> should be safe.

AFAIK, PLLX could run at ~200MHz. There is also a divided output of PLLP
which CCLKG supports, the PLLP_OUT4.

Probably, realistically, CPU is always running off a fast PLLX during
boot, but I'm wondering what may happen on KEXEC. I guess ideally
CPUFreq driver should also have a 'shutdown' callback to teardown DFLL
on a reboot, but likely that there are other clock-related problems as
well that may break KEXEC and thus it is not very important at the moment.

[snip]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 20:43    [W:0.153 / U:10.516 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site