From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941981AbcJYQt7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:49:59 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:40425 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S938798AbcJYQt4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:49:56 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.1 smtp.codeaurora.org BAD37613D3 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sboyd@codeaurora.org Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:49:53 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Rafael Wysocki , nm@ti.com, Viresh Kumar , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vincent Guittot , robh@kernel.org, d-gerlach@ti.com, broonie@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 5/8] PM / OPP: Add infrastructure to manage multiple regulators Message-ID: <20161025164953.GT26139@codeaurora.org> References: <32c1feabb59b1f00e1cefde606e3ec7ef738ac12.1476952750.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <32c1feabb59b1f00e1cefde606e3ec7ef738ac12.1476952750.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/20, Viresh Kumar wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c > index 37fad2eb0f47..45c70ce07864 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c > @@ -235,21 +237,44 @@ unsigned long dev_pm_opp_get_max_volt_latency(struct device *dev) > return 0; > } > > - reg = opp_table->regulator; > - if (IS_ERR(reg)) { > + count = opp_table->regulator_count; > + > + if (!count) { > /* Regulator may not be required for device */ > rcu_read_unlock(); > return 0; > } > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(opp, &opp_table->opp_list, node) { > - if (!opp->available) > - continue; > + size = count * sizeof(*regulators); > + regulators = kmemdup(opp_table->regulators, size, GFP_KERNEL); How do we allocate under RCU? Doesn't that spit out big warnings? > + if (!regulators) { > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + return 0; > + } > + > + min_uV = kmalloc(count * (sizeof(*min_uV) + sizeof(*max_uV)), Do we imagine min_uV is going to be a different size from max_uV? It may be better to have a struct for min/max pair and then stride them. Then the kmalloc() can become a kmalloc_array(). > + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!min_uV) { > + kfree(regulators); > + rcu_read_unlock(); > + return 0; > + } > + > + max_uV = min_uV + count; > + > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { > + min_uV[i] = ~0; > + max_uV[i] = 0; > + > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(opp, &opp_table->opp_list, node) { > + if (!opp->available) > + continue; > > - if (opp->supply.u_volt_min < min_uV) > - min_uV = opp->supply.u_volt_min; > - if (opp->supply.u_volt_max > max_uV) > - max_uV = opp->supply.u_volt_max; > + if (opp->supplies[i].u_volt_min < min_uV[i]) > + min_uV[i] = opp->supplies[i].u_volt_min; > + if (opp->supplies[i].u_volt_max > max_uV[i]) > + max_uV[i] = opp->supplies[i].u_volt_max; > + } > } > > rcu_read_unlock(); > @@ -924,35 +960,49 @@ struct dev_pm_opp *_allocate_opp(struct device *dev, > struct opp_table **opp_table) > { > struct dev_pm_opp *opp; > + int count, supply_size; > + struct opp_table *table; > > - /* allocate new OPP node */ > - opp = kzalloc(sizeof(*opp), GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!opp) > + table = _add_opp_table(dev); > + if (!table) > return NULL; > > - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&opp->node); > + /* Allocate space for at least one supply */ > + count = table->regulator_count ? table->regulator_count : 1; > + supply_size = sizeof(*opp->supplies) * count; > > - *opp_table = _add_opp_table(dev); > - if (!*opp_table) { > - kfree(opp); > + /* allocate new OPP node + and supplies structures */ > + opp = kzalloc(sizeof(*opp) + supply_size, GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!opp) { > + kfree(table); > return NULL; > } > > + opp->supplies = (struct dev_pm_opp_supply *)(opp + 1); So put the supplies at the end of the OPP structure as an empty array? > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&opp->node); > + > + *opp_table = table; > + > return opp; > } > > static bool _opp_supported_by_regulators(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, > struct opp_table *opp_table) > { > - struct regulator *reg = opp_table->regulator; > - > - if (!IS_ERR(reg) && > - !regulator_is_supported_voltage(reg, opp->supply.u_volt_min, > - opp->supply.u_volt_max)) { > - pr_warn("%s: OPP minuV: %lu maxuV: %lu, not supported by regulator\n", > - __func__, opp->supply.u_volt_min, > - opp->supply.u_volt_max); > - return false; > + struct regulator *reg; > + int i; > + > + for (i = 0; i < opp_table->regulator_count; i++) { > + reg = opp_table->regulators[i]; > + > + if (!regulator_is_supported_voltage(reg, > + opp->supplies[i].u_volt_min, > + opp->supplies[i].u_volt_max)) { > + pr_warn("%s: OPP minuV: %lu maxuV: %lu, not supported by regulator\n", > + __func__, opp->supplies[i].u_volt_min, > + opp->supplies[i].u_volt_max); > + return false; > + } > } > > return true; > @@ -984,12 +1034,13 @@ int _opp_add(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_opp *new_opp, > > /* Duplicate OPPs */ > dev_warn(dev, "%s: duplicate OPPs detected. Existing: freq: %lu, volt: %lu, enabled: %d. New: freq: %lu, volt: %lu, enabled: %d\n", > - __func__, opp->rate, opp->supply.u_volt, > - opp->available, new_opp->rate, new_opp->supply.u_volt, > - new_opp->available); > + __func__, opp->rate, opp->supplies[0].u_volt, > + opp->available, new_opp->rate, > + new_opp->supplies[0].u_volt, new_opp->available); > > + /* Should we compare voltages for all regulators here ? */ > return opp->available && > - new_opp->supply.u_volt == opp->supply.u_volt ? 0 : -EEXIST; > + new_opp->supplies[0].u_volt == opp->supplies[0].u_volt ? 0 : -EEXIST; > } > > new_opp->opp_table = opp_table; > @@ -1303,12 +1354,14 @@ void dev_pm_opp_put_prop_name(struct device *dev) > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_put_prop_name); > > /** > - * dev_pm_opp_set_regulator() - Set regulator name for the device > + * dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() - Set regulator names for the device > * @dev: Device for which regulator name is being set. > - * @name: Name of the regulator. > + * @names: Array of pointers to the names of the regulator. > + * @count: Number of regulators. > * > * In order to support OPP switching, OPP layer needs to know the name of the > - * device's regulator, as the core would be required to switch voltages as well. > + * device's regulators, as the core would be required to switch voltages as > + * well. > * > * This must be called before any OPPs are initialized for the device. > * > @@ -1318,11 +1371,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_opp_put_prop_name); > * that this function is *NOT* called under RCU protection or in contexts where > * mutex cannot be locked. > */ > -int dev_pm_opp_set_regulator(struct device *dev, const char *name) > +int dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(struct device *dev, const char *names[], Make names a const char * const *? I seem to recall arrays as function arguments has some problem but my C mastery is failing right now. > + unsigned int count) > { > struct opp_table *opp_table; > struct regulator *reg; > - int ret; > + int ret, i; > > mutex_lock(&opp_table_lock); > > @@ -1338,26 +1392,43 @@ int dev_pm_opp_set_regulator(struct device *dev, const char *name) > goto err; > } > > - /* Already have a regulator set */ > - if (WARN_ON(!IS_ERR(opp_table->regulator))) { > + /* Already have regulators set */ > + if (WARN_ON(opp_table->regulators)) { > ret = -EBUSY; > goto err; > } > - /* Allocate the regulator */ > - reg = regulator_get_optional(dev, name); > - if (IS_ERR(reg)) { > - ret = PTR_ERR(reg); > - if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) > - dev_err(dev, "%s: no regulator (%s) found: %d\n", > - __func__, name, ret); > + > + opp_table->regulators = kmalloc_array(count, > + sizeof(*opp_table->regulators), > + GFP_KERNEL); > + if (!opp_table->regulators) > goto err; > + > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { > + reg = regulator_get_optional(dev, names[i]); > + pr_info("%s: %d: %p: %s\n", __func__, __LINE__, reg, names[i]); Debug noise? > + if (IS_ERR(reg)) { > + ret = PTR_ERR(reg); > + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) > + dev_err(dev, "%s: regulator (%s) not found: %d\n", > + __func__, names[i], ret); > + goto free_regulators; > + } > + > + opp_table->regulators[i] = reg; > } > > - opp_table->regulator = reg; > + opp_table->regulator_count = count; > > mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock); > return 0; > > +free_regulators: > + while (i != 0) > + regulator_put(opp_table->regulators[--i]); > + > + kfree(opp_table->regulators); > + opp_table->regulators = NULL; > err: > _remove_opp_table(opp_table); > unlock: > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/debugfs.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/debugfs.c > index c897676ca35f..cb5e5fde3d39 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/debugfs.c > @@ -34,6 +34,43 @@ void opp_debug_remove_one(struct dev_pm_opp *opp) > debugfs_remove_recursive(opp->dentry); > } > > +static bool opp_debug_create_supplies(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, > + struct opp_table *opp_table, > + struct dentry *pdentry) > +{ > + struct dentry *d; > + int i = 0; > + char name[] = "supply-X"; /* support only 0-9 supplies */ But we don't verify that's the case? Why not use kasprintf() and free() and then there isn't any limit? > + > + /* Always create at least supply-0 directory */ > + do { > + name[7] = i + '0'; > + > + /* Create per-opp directory */ > + d = debugfs_create_dir(name, pdentry); > + if (!d) > + return false; > + > + if (!debugfs_create_ulong("u_volt_target", S_IRUGO, d, > + &opp->supplies[i].u_volt)) > + return false; > + > + if (!debugfs_create_ulong("u_volt_min", S_IRUGO, d, > + &opp->supplies[i].u_volt_min)) > + return false; > + > + if (!debugfs_create_ulong("u_volt_max", S_IRUGO, d, > + &opp->supplies[i].u_volt_max)) > + return false; > + > + if (!debugfs_create_ulong("u_amp", S_IRUGO, d, > + &opp->supplies[i].u_amp)) > + return false; > + } while (++i < opp_table->regulator_count); > + > + return true; > +} > + > int opp_debug_create_one(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, struct opp_table *opp_table) > { > struct dentry *pdentry = opp_table->dentry; > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/of.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/of.c > index b7fcd0a1b58b..c857fb07a5bc 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/of.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/of.c > @@ -105,12 +106,13 @@ static bool _opp_is_supported(struct device *dev, struct opp_table *opp_table, > static int opp_parse_supplies(struct dev_pm_opp *opp, struct device *dev, > struct opp_table *opp_table) > { > - u32 microvolt[3] = {0}; > - u32 val; > - int count, ret; > + u32 *microvolt, *microamp = NULL; > + int supplies, vcount, icount, ret, i, j; > struct property *prop = NULL; > char name[NAME_MAX]; > > + supplies = opp_table->regulator_count ? opp_table->regulator_count : 1; We can't have regulator_count == 1 by default? > + > /* Search for "opp-microvolt-" */ > if (opp_table->prop_name) { > snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "opp-microvolt-%s", > @@ -155,7 +155,8 @@ enum opp_table_access { > * @supported_hw_count: Number of elements in supported_hw array. > * @prop_name: A name to postfix to many DT properties, while parsing them. > * @clk: Device's clock handle > - * @regulator: Supply regulator > + * @regulators: Supply regulators > + * @regulator_count: Number of Power Supply regulators Lowercase Power Supply please. > * @dentry: debugfs dentry pointer of the real device directory (not links). > * @dentry_name: Name of the real dentry. > * > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > index 5c07ae05d69a..15cb26118dc7 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt.c > @@ -186,7 +186,10 @@ static int cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > */ > name = find_supply_name(cpu_dev); > if (name) { > - ret = dev_pm_opp_set_regulator(cpu_dev, name); > + const char *names[] = {name}; > + > + ret = dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(cpu_dev, names, We can't just do &names instead here? Hmm... > + ARRAY_SIZE(names)); > if (ret) { > dev_err(cpu_dev, "Failed to set regulator for cpu%d: %d\n", > policy->cpu, ret); -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project