lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Patch v4 5/7] soc: qcom: Extend RPMh power controller driver to register warming devices.
From
Date


On 2/4/20 12:40 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 13:56, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> RPMh power control hosts power domains that can be used as
>> thermal warming devices. Register these power domains
>> with the generic power domain warming device thermal framework.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> v3->v4:
>> - Introduce a boolean value is_warming_dev in rpmhpd structure to
>> indicate if a generic power domain can be used as a warming
>> device or not.With this change, device tree no longer has to
>> specify which power domain inside the rpmh power domain provider
>> is a warming device.
>> - Move registering of warming devices into a late initcall to
>> ensure that warming devices are registerd after thermal
>> framework is initialized.
>>
>> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
>> index 9d37534..5666d1f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of_device.h>
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> #include <linux/pm_opp.h>
>> +#include <linux/pwr_domain_warming.h>
>> #include <soc/qcom/cmd-db.h>
>> #include <soc/qcom/rpmh.h>
>> #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h>
>> @@ -48,6 +49,7 @@ struct rpmhpd {
>> bool enabled;
>> const char *res_name;
>> u32 addr;
>> + bool is_warming_dev;
>> };
>>
>> struct rpmhpd_desc {
>> @@ -55,6 +57,8 @@ struct rpmhpd_desc {
>> size_t num_pds;
>> };
>>
>> +const struct rpmhpd_desc *global_desc;
>> +
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(rpmhpd_lock);
>>
>> /* SDM845 RPMH powerdomains */
>> @@ -89,6 +93,7 @@ static struct rpmhpd sdm845_mx = {
>> .pd = { .name = "mx", },
>> .peer = &sdm845_mx_ao,
>> .res_name = "mx.lvl",
>> + .is_warming_dev = true,
>> };
>>
>> static struct rpmhpd sdm845_mx_ao = {
>> @@ -396,7 +401,14 @@ static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> &rpmhpds[i]->pd);
>> }
>>
>> - return of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(pdev->dev.of_node, data);
>> + ret = of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(pdev->dev.of_node, data);
>> +
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + global_desc = desc;
>
> I assume this works fine, for now.
>
> Although, nothing prevents this driver from being probed for two
> different compatibles for the same platform. Thus the global_desc
> could be overwritten with the last one being probed, so then how do
> you know which one to use?

Yes. It works fine for now. There are multiple ways to fix this in
future. One is to make global_desc an array. Other would be to move
the code in rpmhpd_init_warming_device to this init and make this a
post_core init considering thermal subsytem uses core init. Like you
said I will leave this at this for now and we can fix this if a need
arises. I don't think there is a need for multiple compatibles for the
same platform now. Thanks for the reviewed by! I will add it in the next
version.

>
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> static struct platform_driver rpmhpd_driver = {
>> @@ -413,3 +425,27 @@ static int __init rpmhpd_init(void)
>> return platform_driver_register(&rpmhpd_driver);
>> }
>> core_initcall(rpmhpd_init);
>> +
>> +static int __init rpmhpd_init_warming_device(void)
>> +{
>> + size_t num_pds;
>> + struct rpmhpd **rpmhpds;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + if (!global_desc)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + rpmhpds = global_desc->rpmhpds;
>> + num_pds = global_desc->num_pds;
>> +
>> + if (!of_find_property(rpmhpds[0]->dev->of_node, "#cooling-cells", NULL))
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_pds; i++)
>> + if (rpmhpds[i]->is_warming_dev)
>> + pwr_domain_warming_register(rpmhpds[i]->dev,
>> + rpmhpds[i]->res_name, i);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +late_initcall(rpmhpd_init_warming_device);
>
> For the record, there are limitations with this approach, for example
> you can't deal with -EPROBE_DEFER.
>
> On the other hand, I don't have anything better to suggest, from the
> top of my head. So, feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>

--
Warm Regards
Thara

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-02 00:36    [W:0.070 / U:6.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site