[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
17.07.2019 0:12, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
> On 7/16/19 1:47 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 16.07.2019 22:26, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
>>> On 7/16/19 11:43 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>>> 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]
>>> During bootup CPUG sources from PLL_X. By PLL_P source above I meant
>>> PLL_P_OUT4.
>>> As per clock policies, PLL_X is always used for high freq like >800Mhz
>>> and for low frequency it will be sourced from PLLP.
>> Alright, then please don't forget to pre-initialize PLLP_OUT4 rate to a
>> reasonable value using tegra_clk_init_table or assigned-clocks.
> PLLP_OUT4 rate update is not needed as it is safe to run at 408Mhz
> because it is below fmax @ Vmin

So even 204MHz CVB entries are having the same voltage as 408MHz,
correct? It's not instantly obvious to me from the DFLL driver's code
where the fmax @ Vmin is defined, I see that there is the min_millivolts
and frequency entries starting from 204MHZ defined per-table.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-16 23:22    [W:0.108 / U:3.432 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site