[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
SubjectRe: [TEGRA194_CPUFREQ Patch 1/3] firmware: tegra: adding function to get BPMP data
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 04-12-19, 10:33, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > Yeah, the code that registers this device is in drivers/base/cpu.c in
> > register_cpu(). It even retrieves the device tree node for the CPU from
> > device tree and stores it in cpu->dev.of_node, so we should be able to
> > just pass &cpu->dev to tegra_bpmp_get() in order to retrieve a reference
> > to the BPMP.
> >
> > That said, I'm wondering if perhaps we could just add a compatible
> > string to the /cpus node for cases like this where we don't have an
> > actual device representing the CPU complex. There are a number of CPU
> > frequency drivers that register dummy devices just so that they have
> > something to bind a driver to.
> >
> > If we allow the /cpus node to represent the CPU complex (if no other
> > "device" does that yet), we can add a compatible string and have the
> > cpufreq driver match on that.
> >
> > Of course this would be slightly difficult to retrofit into existing
> > drivers because they'd need to remain backwards compatible with existing
> > device trees. But it would allow future drivers to do this a little more
> > elegantly. For some SoCs this may not matter, but especially once you
> > start depending on additional resources this would come in handy.
> >
> > Adding Rob and the device tree mailing list for feedback on this idea.
> Took some time to find this thread, but something around this was
> suggested by Rafael earlier.

I gave this a try and came up with the following:

--- >8 ---
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
index f4ede86e32b4..e4462f95f0b3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
@@ -1764,6 +1764,9 @@ bpmp_thermal: thermal {

cpus {
+ compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-ccplex";
+ nvidia,bpmp = <&bpmp>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;

--- >8 ---
Now I can do something rougly like this, although I have a more complete
patch locally that also gets rid of all the global variables because we
now actually have a struct platform_device that we can anchor everything

--- >8 ---
static const struct of_device_id tegra194_cpufreq_of_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-ccplex", },
{ /* sentinel */ }
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tegra194_cpufreq_of_match);
static struct platform_driver tegra194_ccplex_driver = {
.driver = {
.name = "tegra194-cpufreq",
.of_match_table = tegra194_cpufreq_of_match,
.probe = tegra194_cpufreq_probe,
.remove = tegra194_cpufreq_remove,
--- >8 ---
I don't think that's exactly what Rafael (Cc'ed) had in mind, since the
above thread seems to have mostly talked about binding a driver to each
individual CPU.

But this seems a lot better than having to instantiate a device from
scratch just so that a driver can bind to it and it allows additional
properties to be associated with the CCPLEX device.

Rob, any thoughts on this from a device tree point of view? The /cpus
bindings don't mention the compatible property, but there doesn't seem
to be anything in the bindings that would prohibit its use.

If we can agree on that, I can forward my local changes to Sumit for
inclusion or reference.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-07 12:06    [W:0.138 / U:3.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site