From: Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Device tree binding for DVFS table Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:10:16 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120712171016.GL2772@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20120712141001.GE9437@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> On 20120712-17:10, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:04:02PM +0200, Mike Turquette wrote: > > On 20120711-15:44, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > I'd expect a single property with freq/volt pairs or 2 properties for > > > > freq and voltage where there is a 1:1 relationship (freq N uses voltage N). > > > > > > I strongly agree - the current proposal is very hard to read due to the > > > separation between the voltage and frequency values. Some devices do > > > also need to scale multiple rails together, especially when this gets > > > used for I/O devices. > > > > > > I'd also expect to see a range of voltages for each frequency rather > > > than a specific voltage; usually things are at least characterised with > > > a specified tolerance. > > > > Not only should we support multiple voltage rails but also multiple > > clocks. For some devices a DVFS transition is composed of scaling > > multiple clock rates together. So some sort of clock identifier > > (phandle?) is needed as well. (forgive my ignorance on the phandle > > part, as I am a DT noob) > > I would say this constraint should be expressed in a seperate DT node. In > short I think we have 3 things to model: > Peter, I agree with your observations in general, but I think some specificity is needed: > + frequency/voltage relationships We should be clear that the voltage does NOT belong to the clock, but to the device/module/IP block that consumes that clock. This is an important detail since it means that a clock does not have a corresponding table of voltages (e.g. one table per clock), but instead a device has a table of voltages corresponding to each clock. This is very necessary when a single clock drives multiple devices which are driven by separate voltage rails. > + power rail constraints (eg voltage difference limit between 2 rails) This should come from regulator DT data and not anything DVFS-specific, correct? > + clock constraints (eg. clock x frequency must be a fixed ratio of clock y > frequency) Yeah, after sending my email above yesterday I instantly regretted it. It is true that *functional* clock dependencies are really the purview of the device driver. E.g. for Device X to operate at FAST_SPEED, scale functional_clk up to 200MHz and l3_ddr_clk up to 100MHz. On OMAP our display subsystem block also has clock ratio rules that must be honored, but it just open-coded. It is possible to model those in DT if we really want, but shouldn't be a priority for these dvfs-specific bindings. Regards, Mike > > Cheers, > > Peter.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: mturquette@ti.com (Mike Turquette) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Device tree binding for DVFS table Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:10:16 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20120712171016.GL2772@gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20120712141001.GE9437@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> On 20120712-17:10, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:04:02PM +0200, Mike Turquette wrote: > > On 20120711-15:44, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 09:03:41AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > I'd expect a single property with freq/volt pairs or 2 properties for > > > > freq and voltage where there is a 1:1 relationship (freq N uses voltage N). > > > > > > I strongly agree - the current proposal is very hard to read due to the > > > separation between the voltage and frequency values. Some devices do > > > also need to scale multiple rails together, especially when this gets > > > used for I/O devices. > > > > > > I'd also expect to see a range of voltages for each frequency rather > > > than a specific voltage; usually things are at least characterised with > > > a specified tolerance. > > > > Not only should we support multiple voltage rails but also multiple > > clocks. For some devices a DVFS transition is composed of scaling > > multiple clock rates together. So some sort of clock identifier > > (phandle?) is needed as well. (forgive my ignorance on the phandle > > part, as I am a DT noob) > > I would say this constraint should be expressed in a seperate DT node. In > short I think we have 3 things to model: > Peter, I agree with your observations in general, but I think some specificity is needed: > + frequency/voltage relationships We should be clear that the voltage does NOT belong to the clock, but to the device/module/IP block that consumes that clock. This is an important detail since it means that a clock does not have a corresponding table of voltages (e.g. one table per clock), but instead a device has a table of voltages corresponding to each clock. This is very necessary when a single clock drives multiple devices which are driven by separate voltage rails. > + power rail constraints (eg voltage difference limit between 2 rails) This should come from regulator DT data and not anything DVFS-specific, correct? > + clock constraints (eg. clock x frequency must be a fixed ratio of clock y > frequency) Yeah, after sending my email above yesterday I instantly regretted it. It is true that *functional* clock dependencies are really the purview of the device driver. E.g. for Device X to operate at FAST_SPEED, scale functional_clk up to 200MHz and l3_ddr_clk up to 100MHz. On OMAP our display subsystem block also has clock ratio rules that must be honored, but it just open-coded. It is possible to model those in DT if we really want, but shouldn't be a priority for these dvfs-specific bindings. Regards, Mike > > Cheers, > > Peter.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-12 17:10 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2012-07-11 12:56 Device tree binding for DVFS table Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-11 13:08 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-11 14:03 ` Rob Herring 2012-07-11 14:03 ` Rob Herring 2012-07-11 14:44 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-11 14:44 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-11 20:04 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-11 20:04 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-12 4:14 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-12 4:26 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-12 14:10 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-12 14:10 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-12 17:10 ` Mike Turquette [this message] 2012-07-12 17:10 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-12 17:15 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-12 17:15 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-13 10:34 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-13 10:34 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-13 17:25 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-13 17:25 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-12 4:17 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-12 4:29 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-12 15:23 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-12 15:23 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-12 17:01 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-12 17:01 ` Mike Turquette 2012-07-12 8:19 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-12 8:19 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-12 4:08 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-12 4:20 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-13 18:30 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-13 18:42 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-15 21:40 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-15 21:40 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-15 23:42 ` Rob Herring 2012-07-15 23:42 ` Rob Herring 2012-07-16 18:36 ` Turquette, Mike 2012-07-16 18:36 ` Turquette, Mike 2012-07-17 12:37 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-17 12:49 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-17 13:20 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-17 13:20 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-17 14:22 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-17 14:34 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-17 14:37 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-17 14:37 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-18 12:46 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-18 12:58 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-18 21:19 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-18 21:19 ` Mark Brown 2012-07-18 17:08 ` Shawn Guo 2012-07-18 17:08 ` Shawn Guo 2012-07-11 13:08 함명주 2012-07-11 13:08 ` 함명주 2012-07-11 13:49 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-11 13:49 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-11 13:49 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-11 13:49 ` Peter De Schrijver 2012-07-12 4:22 ` Prashant Gaikwad 2012-07-12 4:34 ` Prashant Gaikwad
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20120712171016.GL2772@gmail.com \ --to=mturquette@ti.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.