lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 13/15] cpufreq: mediatek: Link CCI device to CPU
    Il 08/04/22 06:59, Rex-BC Chen ha scritto:
    > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com>
    >
    > In some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8183, CPU and CCI share the same power
    > supplies. Cpufreq needs to check if CCI devfreq exists and wait until
    > CCI devfreq ready before scaling frequency.
    >
    > - Add is_ccifreq_ready() to link CCI device to CPI, and CPU will start
    > DVFS when CCI is ready.
    > - Add platform data for MT8183.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com>
    > ---
    > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
    > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
    > index b08ab7c14818..cebe5af2ef5d 100644
    > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
    > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c
    > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ struct mtk_cpufreq_platform_data {
    > int proc_max_volt;
    > int sram_min_volt;
    > int sram_max_volt;
    > + bool is_ccifreq_support;

    bool ccifreq_supported; looks better.

    > };
    >
    > /*
    > @@ -38,6 +39,7 @@ struct mtk_cpufreq_platform_data {
    > struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info {
    > struct cpumask cpus;
    > struct device *cpu_dev;
    > + struct device *cci_dev;
    > struct regulator *proc_reg;
    > struct regulator *sram_reg;
    > struct clk *cpu_clk;
    > @@ -52,6 +54,7 @@ struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info {
    > int opp_cpu;
    > unsigned long opp_freq;
    > const struct mtk_cpufreq_platform_data *soc_data;
    > + bool is_ccifreq_bounded;

    bool ccifreq_bound; looks better.

    > };
    >
    > static struct platform_device *cpufreq_pdev;
    > @@ -171,6 +174,29 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_set_voltage(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int vproc)
    > return ret;
    > }
    >
    > +static bool is_ccifreq_ready(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info)
    > +{
    > + struct device_link *sup_link;
    > +
    > + if (info->is_ccifreq_bounded)
    > + return true;
    > +
    > + sup_link = device_link_add(info->cpu_dev, info->cci_dev,
    > + DL_FLAG_AUTOREMOVE_CONSUMER);
    > + if (!sup_link) {
    > + dev_err(info->cpu_dev, "cpu%d: sup_link is NULL\n",
    > + info->opp_cpu);

    Please, don't break this line: 84 columns are ok.

    > + return false;
    > + }
    > +
    > + if (sup_link->supplier->links.status != DL_DEV_DRIVER_BOUND)
    > + return false;
    > +
    > + info->is_ccifreq_bounded = true;
    > +
    > + return true;
    > +}
    > +
    > static int mtk_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
    > unsigned int index)
    > {
    > @@ -183,6 +209,9 @@ static int mtk_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
    > long freq_hz, old_freq_hz;
    > int vproc, old_vproc, inter_vproc, target_vproc, ret;
    >
    > + if (info->soc_data->is_ccifreq_support && !is_ccifreq_ready(info))
    > + return 0;

    Honestly, I think that pretending that everything is alright and faking
    set_target success is *not* a good idea...

    You should return -EAGAIN here, not zero.

    Regards,
    Angelo

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-04-08 15:38    [W:2.327 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site