Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] clk: sunxi-ng: Optimize rate selection for NKM clocks

["Jernej Škrabec" <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>]

Dne četrtek, 01. junij 2023 ob 07:16:45 CEST je Frank Oltmanns napisal(a):
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> On 2023-05-31 at 15:48:43 +0200, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> > Hi Frank,
> >
> > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 03:27:44PM +0200, Frank Oltmanns wrote:
> >> I would like to bring your attention to the current process of setting
> >> the rate of an NKM clock. As it stands, when setting the rate of an
> >> NKM clock, the rate nearest but less than or equal to the requested
> >> rate is found, instead of the nearest rate.
> >
> > Yeah, it's actually pretty common, see clk_mux_determine_rate_flags()
> > for example. Some devices require that we don't overshoot, while some
> > prefer to have the closest rate.
> >
> > Both are fine, and it's a bit context specific which one we should
> > favour. If we were to do anything, it would be to support both and let
> > the clock driver select which behaviour it wants.
> >
> 
> Ok, understood. Thank you for the explanation! Now, I'm wondering if
> anyone would be using such a flag, if I added it.
> 
> >
> >> Moreover, ccu_nkm_find_best() is called multiple times (footnote [1])
> >> when setting a rate, each time iterating over all combinations of n,
> >> k, and m.
> >
> > Yeah, that's expected as well.
> 
> I'm wondering though, if iterating over all combinations is set in
> stone, or if some kind of optimization would be in order.
> 
> >
> >> In response to this, I propose the following refinements to optimize the NKM
> >> clock setting:
> >>  a. when finding the best rate use the nearest rate, even if it is greater than
> >>     the requested rate (PATCH 1)
> >>  b. utilize binary search to find the best rate by going through a
> >>     precalculated, ordered list of all meaningful combinations of n, k, and m
> >>     (PATCH 2)
> >
> > One thing you haven't really addressed is why we would be doing this? Is
> > there some clocks that require a more precise clock and don't? Is the
> > factor calculation a bottleneck for some workloads?
> 
> Background
> ==========
> I'm a pinephone user (ccu-sun50i-a64). I'm using U-Boot which sets the
> pll-video0 to 294 MHz on boot. The phone's panel requires DCLK to run at
> 108 MHz to get a nice 60 Hz vertical refresh rate. The clock structure
> is this:
> 
>     clock                       clock type
>     --------------------------------------
>     pll-video0                  ccu_nm
>        pll-mipi                 ccu_nkm
>           tcon0                 ccu_mux
>              tcon-data-clock    sun4i_dclk
> 
> The divider between tcon0 and tcon-data-clock is fixed at 4. So, I need
> pll-mipi to run at 432 MHz to get the desired vertical refresh rate.
> When pll-vdeo0 is at 294 MHz this is that rate cannot be matched exactly
> with any combination. The best we can get is 431.2 MHz (n=11, k=2,
> m=15).
> 
> The pinephone has some "vendor" patches (megi kernel) that
>  a. add HDMI
>  b. allow re-setting pll-mipi's rate when pll-video0 changes
> 
> Re: Who needs a more precise clock?
> ===================================
> When plugging in HDMI, pll-video's rate is set to 297 MHz, which - in
> the vendor kernel, not mainline - triggers recalculation of pll-mipi
> (trying to set it to 431.2 MHz). It ends up with a rate of 424.285714
> MHz, because this is the nearest, but less than 431.2 MHz (n=5, k=2,
> m=7). The nearest rate would be 432 MHz.
> 
> So, while analyzing the whole situation that I described above, I found
> out that the NKM clocks are not set to the closest rate and wondered why
> that is. Hence my request for comments.
> 
> Now, one could argue that pll-video0 should be set to 297MHz at boot or
> that pll-mipi should try to set the *requested* rate instead of the
> previous rate when the pll-video0 changes. And I think that both are
> valid or even better approaches than my proposal in this RFC to address
> this specific problem and I'll probably sent patches to discuss this as
> well.

Ideally, clock rate setting code should be immune on "initial" values, set by
bootloader or default values. If it's not, then it should be improved in the
way that it is.

> 
> 
> Re: Why speed up factor calculation?
> ====================================
> I'm not aware that the current implementation of calculating n, k, and m
> poses a bottleneck in any situation. Again, while going through the
> code, I wondered why not save a few CPU cycles by precalculating the
> meaningful combinations. In my opinion, it does not have any side
> effects, so we might as well do it. (There is of course the side effect
> of using a higher rate, but this is unrelated to precalculation as I
> could as well employ a rate comparison that only allows lower rates, or
> only optionally higher rates.)
> 
> > Clocks in general are very regression-prone, so I'd rather be a bit
> > conservative there, and "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> 
> Sure, I get that.
> 
> As I stated in my cover letter:
> "The motivation for these proposed changes lies in the current behavior
> of rate selection for NKM clocks, which doesn't observe the
> CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT flag. I.e. it does not select a different rate for
> the parent clock to find the optimal rate."
> 
> I thought that this required this optimization to be implemented, but by
> now, I'm no longer sure. I'll probably continue investigating different
> paths for CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for NKM clocks and follow up with new
> findings.

Let's leave out any optimizations that are not apparently needed. Most clock
rates are set only once at boot and others, like video clocks, not that often,
so a suboptimal code speed doesn't hurt currently.

Best regards,
Jernej

> 
> Thanks,
>   Frank
> 
> >
> > Maxime
> >
> > [[End of PGP Signed Part]]
>