lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Patch v2 3/5] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt support
From
Date


On 6/28/21 10:35 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-06-21, 07:58, Thara Gopinath wrote:
>> Add interrupt support to notify the kernel of h/w initiated frequency
>> throttling by LMh. Convey this to scheduler via thermal presssure
>> interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>
>> v1->v2:
>> - Introduced qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init to consolidate LMh related initializations
>> as per Viresh's review comment.
>> - Moved the piece of code restarting polling/re-enabling LMh interrupt to
>> qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify therby simplifying isr and timer callback as per Viresh's
>> suggestion.
>> - Droped cpus from qcom_cpufreq_data and instead using cpus from cpufreq_policy in
>> qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify as per Viresh's review comment.
>> - Dropped dt property qcom,support-lmh as per Bjorn's suggestion.
>> - Other minor/cosmetic fixes
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> index f86859bf76f1..241f6f2b441f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
>> #include <linux/pm_opp.h>
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>
> Please don't break the alphabetical order here.
>
>> #define LUT_MAX_ENTRIES 40U
>> #define LUT_SRC GENMASK(31, 30)
>> @@ -22,10 +23,13 @@
>> #define CLK_HW_DIV 2
>> #define LUT_TURBO_IND 1
>>
>> +#define HZ_PER_KHZ 1000
>>
>> struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data {
>> u32 reg_enable;
>> u32 reg_freq_lut;
>> u32 reg_volt_lut;
>> + u32 reg_current_vote;
>> u32 reg_perf_state;
>> u8 lut_row_size;
>> };
>> @@ -33,7 +37,10 @@ struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data {
>> struct qcom_cpufreq_data {
>> void __iomem *base;
>> struct resource *res;
>> + struct delayed_work lmh_dcvs_poll_work;
>> const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
>> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>> + int lmh_dcvs_irq;
>> };
>>
>> static unsigned long cpu_hw_rate, xo_rate;
>> @@ -251,10 +258,79 @@ static void qcom_get_related_cpus(int index, struct cpumask *m)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static inline unsigned long qcom_lmh_vote_to_freq(u32 val)
>> +{
>> + return (val & 0x3FF) * 19200;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
>> +{
>> + struct cpufreq_policy *policy = data->policy;
>> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
>> + struct device *dev;
>> + unsigned long max_capacity, capacity, freq_hz, throttled_freq;
>> + unsigned int val, freq;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Get the h/w throttled frequency, normalize it using the
>> + * registered opp table and use it to calculate thermal pressure.
>> + */
>> + val = readl_relaxed(data->base + data->soc_data->reg_current_vote);
>> + freq = qcom_lmh_vote_to_freq(val);
>> + freq_hz = freq * HZ_PER_KHZ;
>> +
>> + dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(policy->cpus));
>> + opp = dev_pm_opp_find_freq_floor(dev, &freq_hz);
>> + if (IS_ERR(opp) && PTR_ERR(opp) == -ERANGE)
>> + opp = dev_pm_opp_find_freq_ceil(dev, &freq_hz);
>> +
>> + throttled_freq = freq_hz / HZ_PER_KHZ;
>> +
>> + /* Update thermal pressure */
>> + max_capacity = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpumask_first(policy->cpus));
>> + capacity = throttled_freq * max_capacity;
>> + capacity /= policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
>> + /* Don't pass boost capacity to scheduler */
>> + if (capacity > max_capacity)
>> + capacity = max_capacity;
>
> I wonder why this check isn't present for cpufreq_cooling.c .

Hi Viresh,

I don't think cpufreq_cooling recognizes boost frequencies. The max
state there is the max of nominal frequencies , right? If not, it might
be a good idea to add this check there as well.

I will fix rest of your comments in v3.

--
Warm Regards
Thara (She/Her/Hers)

>
>> + arch_set_thermal_pressure(policy->cpus, max_capacity - capacity);
>> + /*
>
> Whenever you mix code and comments, please separate them with a blank
> line, else it becomes a bit messy and harder to read.
>
>> + * If h/w throttled frequency is higher than what cpufreq has requested for, stop
>> + * polling and switch back to interrupt mechanism
>> + */
>> + if (throttled_freq >= qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(cpumask_first(policy->cpus)))
>> + /* Clear the existing interrupts and enable it back */
>> + enable_irq(data->lmh_dcvs_irq);
>> + else
>> + mod_delayed_work(system_highpri_wq, &data->lmh_dcvs_poll_work,
>> + msecs_to_jiffies(10));
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void qcom_lmh_dcvs_poll(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
>> +
>> + data = container_of(work, struct qcom_cpufreq_data, lmh_dcvs_poll_work.work);
>> +
>> + qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify(data);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static irqreturn_t qcom_lmh_dcvs_handle_irq(int irq, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *c_data = data;
>> +
>> + /* Disable interrupt and enable polling */
>> + disable_irq_nosync(c_data->lmh_dcvs_irq);
>> + qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify(c_data);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data qcom_soc_data = {
>> .reg_enable = 0x0,
>> .reg_freq_lut = 0x110,
>> .reg_volt_lut = 0x114,
>> + .reg_current_vote = 0x704,
>> .reg_perf_state = 0x920,
>> .lut_row_size = 32,
>> };
>> @@ -274,6 +350,23 @@ static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpufreq_hw_match[] = {
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_cpufreq_hw_match);
>>
>> +static void qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> +{
>> + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
>> + struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = devm_request_irq(dev, data->lmh_dcvs_irq, qcom_lmh_dcvs_handle_irq,
>> + 0, "dcvsh-irq", data);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error %d registering irq %x\n", ret, data->lmh_dcvs_irq);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + data->policy = policy;
>> + INIT_DEFERRABLE_WORK(&data->lmh_dcvs_poll_work, qcom_lmh_dcvs_poll);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> {
>> struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
>> @@ -370,6 +463,16 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>> dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to enable boost: %d\n", ret);
>> }
>>
>> + /* Look for LMh interrupt. If no interrupt line is specified /
>> + * if there is an error, allow cpufreq to be enabled as usual.
>> + */
>
> Proper comment style please..
>
>> + data->lmh_dcvs_irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, index);
>> + if (data->lmh_dcvs_irq > 0) {
>> + qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init(policy);
>> + } else if (data->lmh_dcvs_irq != -ENXIO) {
>> + ret = data->lmh_dcvs_irq;
>> + goto error;
>> + }
>
> Move all of this to qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init().
>
> And I don't see any cleanup for this stuff. There is no guarantee that
> the irq won't fire and queue up a work right after cpufreq driver is
> unregistered and before the devm_ stuff gets released.
>
>> return 0;
>> error:
>> kfree(data);
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-30 04:26    [W:0.106 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site