lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Make use of of_match data for offsets and row size
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 8:40 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 0908, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:27 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam
> > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > For preparing the driver to handle further SoC revisions, let's use the
> > > of_match data for getting the device specific offsets and row size instead
> > > of defining them globally.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > > index ccea34f61152..41853db7c9b8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > > @@ -19,15 +19,21 @@
> > > #define LUT_L_VAL GENMASK(7, 0)
> > > #define LUT_CORE_COUNT GENMASK(18, 16)
> > > #define LUT_VOLT GENMASK(11, 0)
> > > -#define LUT_ROW_SIZE 32
> > > #define CLK_HW_DIV 2
> > > #define LUT_TURBO_IND 1
> > >
> > > -/* Register offsets */
> > > -#define REG_ENABLE 0x0
> > > -#define REG_FREQ_LUT 0x110
> > > -#define REG_VOLT_LUT 0x114
> > > -#define REG_PERF_STATE 0x920
> > > +struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data {
> > > + u32 reg_enable;
> > > + u32 reg_freq_lut;
> > > + u32 reg_volt_lut;
> > > + u32 reg_perf_state;
> > > + u8 lut_row_size;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +struct qcom_cpufreq_data {
> > > + void __iomem *base;
> > > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> > > +};
> > >
> > > static unsigned long cpu_hw_rate, xo_rate;
> > > static bool icc_scaling_enabled;
> > > @@ -76,10 +82,11 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > unsigned int index)
> > > {
> > > - void __iomem *perf_state_reg = policy->driver_data;
> > > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> > > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data = data->soc_data;
> > > unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > >
> > > - writel_relaxed(index, perf_state_reg);
> > > + writel_relaxed(index, data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> > >
> > > if (icc_scaling_enabled)
> > > qcom_cpufreq_set_bw(policy, freq);
> > > @@ -91,7 +98,8 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > >
> > > static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - void __iomem *perf_state_reg;
> > > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> > > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> > > struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > > unsigned int index;
> > >
> > > @@ -99,9 +107,10 @@ static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> > > if (!policy)
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - perf_state_reg = policy->driver_data;
> > > + data = policy->driver_data;
> > > + soc_data = data->soc_data;
> > >
> > > - index = readl_relaxed(perf_state_reg);
> > > + index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> > > index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> > >
> > > return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > > @@ -110,12 +119,13 @@ static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> > > static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > unsigned int target_freq)
> > > {
> > > - void __iomem *perf_state_reg = policy->driver_data;
> > > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> > > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data = data->soc_data;
> > > unsigned int index;
> > > unsigned long freq;
> > >
> > > index = policy->cached_resolved_idx;
> > > - writel_relaxed(index, perf_state_reg);
> > > + writel_relaxed(index, data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> > >
> > > freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > > arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> > > @@ -125,8 +135,7 @@ static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > }
> > >
> > > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > > - void __iomem *base)
> > > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > > {
> > > u32 data, src, lval, i, core_count, prev_freq = 0, freq;
> > > u32 volt;
> > > @@ -134,6 +143,8 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > > struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> > > unsigned long rate;
> > > int ret;
> > > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *drv_data = policy->driver_data;
> > > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data = drv_data->soc_data;
> > >
> > > table = kcalloc(LUT_MAX_ENTRIES + 1, sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > if (!table)
> > > @@ -160,14 +171,14 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > > }
> > >
> > > for (i = 0; i < LUT_MAX_ENTRIES; i++) {
> > > - data = readl_relaxed(base + REG_FREQ_LUT +
> > > - i * LUT_ROW_SIZE);
> > > + data = readl_relaxed(drv_data->base + soc_data->reg_freq_lut +
> > > + i * soc_data->lut_row_size);
> > > src = FIELD_GET(LUT_SRC, data);
> > > lval = FIELD_GET(LUT_L_VAL, data);
> > > core_count = FIELD_GET(LUT_CORE_COUNT, data);
> > >
> > > - data = readl_relaxed(base + REG_VOLT_LUT +
> > > - i * LUT_ROW_SIZE);
> > > + data = readl_relaxed(drv_data->base + soc_data->reg_volt_lut +
> > > + i * soc_data->lut_row_size);
> > > volt = FIELD_GET(LUT_VOLT, data) * 1000;
> > >
> > > if (src)
> > > @@ -237,6 +248,20 @@ static void qcom_get_related_cpus(int index, struct cpumask *m)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data qcom_soc_data = {
> >
> > rename this to sdm845_soc_data?
> >
>
> Nah, this is not specific to SDM845. Atleast in mainline, there are 3 SoCs
> using this compatible.
>
> > Or even better, maybe just use the IP version number for this IP block
> > so that all SoCs using that IP version can use this struct?
> >
>
> Since the SoCs are using the same compatible it makes sense to use the same
> name for the of_data. I don't think it is a good idea to use different name
> for the of_data since the differentiation has to happen at compatible level.

You are using the name sm8250_soc_data in a subsequent patch, though ;-)

So I think it would make sense for compatible "qcom,cpufreq-hw" to use
data "osm_soc_data" and compatible "qcom,sm8250-epss" to use data
"epss_soc_data" as suggested by Bjorn.

Regards,
Amit


>
> > > + .reg_enable = 0x0,
> > > + .reg_freq_lut = 0x110,
> > > + .reg_volt_lut = 0x114,
> > > + .reg_perf_state = 0x920,
> > > + .lut_row_size = 32,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpufreq_hw_match[] = {
> > > + { .compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw", .data = &qcom_soc_data },
> > > + {}
> > > +};

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-08 19:09    [W:0.050 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site