Linux-ARM-MSM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	spjoshi@codeaurora.org, kaushalk@codeaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] remoteproc: Adding q6v55 specific regulator, clk, reset interface.
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:05:12 -0700
Message-ID: <20161025190512.GN7509@tuxbot> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1477324559-24752-3-git-send-email-akdwived@codeaurora.org>

On Mon 24 Oct 08:55 PDT 2016, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:

> q6v55 use different regulator and clock resource than q6v5, hence
> using separate resource handling for same.

> Also reset register
> programming in q6v55 is non secure so resource controller init-
> ilization is not required for q6v55.

The reset comes from GCC, so please use the fact that gcc already is a
reset-controller.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c | 271 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 271 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> index 8df95a0..c7dca40 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
> @@ -215,6 +215,203 @@ static void q6v5_regulator_disable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>  	regulator_set_voltage(mss, 0, 1150000);
>  }
>  
> +static int q6v55_regulator_init(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].supply = "vdd_cx";
> +	qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].supply = "vdd_mx";
> +	qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].supply = "vdd_pll";
> +
> +	ret = devm_regulator_bulk_get(qproc->dev,
> +			(ARRAY_SIZE(qproc->supply) - 1), qproc->supply);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get supplies\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

This is very very similar to the existing q6v5_regulator_init, please
figure out a way to make the mss supply optional here instead of
creating a new function.

> +
> +static int q6v55_clk_enable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->ahb_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->axi_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_axi_clk;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->rom_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_rom_clk;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_gpll0_mss_clk;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_snoc_axi_clk;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_mnoc_axi_clk;

I believe it would be better to turn the clocks into an array, like the
regulators, so that we can loop over them rather than listing them
explicitly.

> +
> +	return 0;
> +err_mnoc_axi_clk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> +err_snoc_axi_clk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> +err_gpll0_mss_clk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->rom_clk);
> +err_rom_clk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->axi_clk);
> +err_axi_clk:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->ahb_clk);
> +out:
> +	dev_err(qproc->dev, "Clk Vote Failed\n");

I believe the clock framework will complain if above fails, so no need
to add another print here.

> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static void q6v55_clk_disable(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->rom_clk);
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->axi_clk);
> +	if (!qproc->ahb_clk_vote)

Why do you check ahb_clk_vote in the disable case but not in the enable
case?

Also, please move all ahb_clk_vote handling into the same patch.

> +		clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->ahb_clk);
> +}
> +
> +static int q6v55_proxy_vote(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +	struct regulator *mx = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer;
> +	struct regulator *cx = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer;
> +	struct regulator *vdd_pll = qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = regulator_set_voltage(mx, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);

I'm not convinced that we should vote MAX as minimum voltage here, is it
not 1.05V as in the q6v5?

> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set voltage for vreg_mx\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_enable(mx);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to enable vreg_mx\n");
> +		goto err_mx_enable;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_set_voltage(cx, INT_MAX, INT_MAX);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to request vdd_cx voltage.\n");
> +		goto err_cx_voltage;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_set_load(cx, 100000);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set vdd_cx mode.\n");
> +		goto err_cx_set_load;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_enable(cx);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to vote for vdd_cx\n");
> +		goto err_cx_enable;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_set_voltage(vdd_pll, 1800000, 1800000);

PLL is fed from a fixed voltage regulator of 1.8V, so we do not need to
request a voltage (per Mark Brown's request).

> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set voltage for  vdd_pll\n");
> +		goto err_vreg_pll_set_vol;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_set_load(vdd_pll, 10000);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to set vdd_pll mode.\n");
> +		goto err_vreg_pll_load;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = regulator_enable(vdd_pll);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "Failed to vote for vdd_pll\n");
> +		goto err_vreg_pll_enable;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->xo);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_xo_vote;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_pnoc_vote;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(qproc->qdss_clk);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto err_qdss_vote;
> +	qproc->unvote_flag = false;
> +	return 0;
> +
> +err_qdss_vote:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> +err_pnoc_vote:
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->xo);
> +err_xo_vote:
> +	regulator_disable(vdd_pll);
> +err_vreg_pll_enable:
> +	regulator_set_load(vdd_pll, 0);
> +err_vreg_pll_load:
> +	regulator_set_voltage(vdd_pll, 0, INT_MAX);
> +err_vreg_pll_set_vol:
> +	regulator_disable(cx);
> +err_cx_enable:
> +	regulator_set_load(cx, 0);
> +err_cx_set_load:
> +	regulator_set_voltage(cx, 0, INT_MAX);
> +err_cx_voltage:
> +	regulator_disable(mx);
> +err_mx_enable:
> +	regulator_set_voltage(mx, 0, INT_MAX);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

As with the init function, this is very similar to the q6v5 case, so I
don't think we need to have separate functions for it.

A side note on this is that clk_prepare_enable(NULL) is valid, so if you
distinguish between the two cases during initialisation and put all
clocks in an array you could just call clk_prepare_enable() on all of
them, which will skip the ones that isn't initialised.

> +
> +static void q6v55_proxy_unvote(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +	if (!qproc->unvote_flag) {

I don't think the "unvote_flag" is good design and don't see how you
would end up unvoting multiple times based on my original design.

But again, the answer is probably in some other patch - i.e. please
group your patches so I can see each step in its entirety.

> +		regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer);
> +		regulator_set_load(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_PLL].consumer, 0);
> +		regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer);
> +		regulator_set_load(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer, 0);
> +		regulator_set_voltage(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_CX].consumer,
> +			0, INT_MAX);
> +
> +		clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->qdss_clk);
> +		clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> +		clk_disable_unprepare(qproc->xo);
> +
> +		regulator_disable(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer);
> +		regulator_set_voltage(qproc->supply[Q6V5_SUPPLY_MX].consumer,
> +			0, INT_MAX);
> +	}
> +	qproc->unvote_flag = true;
> +}
> +
> +static void pil_mss_restart_reg(struct q6v5 *qproc, u32 mss_restart)
> +{
> +	if (qproc->restart_reg) {
> +		writel_relaxed(mss_restart, qproc->restart_reg);
> +		udelay(2);
> +	}
> +}

Drop this

> +
>  static int q6v5_load(struct rproc *rproc, const struct firmware *fw)
>  {
>  	struct q6v5 *qproc = rproc->priv;
> @@ -751,6 +948,65 @@ static int q6v5_init_clocks(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int q6v55_init_clocks(struct q6v5 *qproc)
> +{
> +	qproc->ahb_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "iface");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->ahb_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get iface clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->ahb_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	qproc->axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "bus");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->axi_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get bus clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->axi_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	qproc->rom_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "mem");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->rom_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get mem clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->rom_clk);
> +	}

These three are the same as q6v5...

> +
> +	qproc->snoc_axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "snoc_axi_clk");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->snoc_axi_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get snoc_axi_clk\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->snoc_axi_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	qproc->mnoc_axi_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "mnoc_axi_clk");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get mnoc_axi_clk clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->mnoc_axi_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	qproc->gpll0_mss_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "gpll0_mss_clk");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get gpll0_mss_clk clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->gpll0_mss_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	qproc->xo = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "xo");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->xo)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get xo\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->xo);
> +	}

And q6v5 will need "xo" as well, I missed this one.

> +
> +	qproc->pnoc_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "pnoc");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->pnoc_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get pnoc_clk clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->pnoc_clk);
> +	}
> +
> +	qproc->qdss_clk = devm_clk_get(qproc->dev, "qdss");
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->qdss_clk)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get qdss_clk clock\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->qdss_clk);
> +	}
> +

I would rather see that we have a single init_clocks function that based
on compatible will get the appropriate clocks.

> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>  {
>  	qproc->mss_restart = devm_reset_control_get(qproc->dev, NULL);
> @@ -762,6 +1018,21 @@ static int q6v5_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static int q6v55_init_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc, struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct resource *res;
> +
> +	res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "restart_reg");
> +	qproc->restart_reg = devm_ioremap(qproc->dev, res->start,
> +							resource_size(res));
> +	if (IS_ERR(qproc->restart_reg)) {
> +		dev_err(qproc->dev, "failed to get restart_reg\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(qproc->restart_reg);
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

Drop this

> +
>  static int q6v5_request_irq(struct q6v5 *qproc,
>  			     struct platform_device *pdev,
>  			     const char *name,
> -- 
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
> 

  reply index

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-24 15:55 [PATCH 0/5] Self authenticating hexagon driver for q6v55 Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-24 15:55 ` [PATCH 1/5] remoteproc: Add q6v55 specific parameters and enable probing " Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-25 18:47   ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-11-04 13:27     ` Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-11-08  5:28       ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-10-24 15:55 ` [PATCH 2/5] remoteproc: Adding q6v55 specific regulator, clk, reset interface Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-25 19:05   ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2016-11-04 13:41     ` Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-24 15:55 ` [PATCH 3/5] remoteproc: Adding reset sequence and halt seq changes for q6v55 Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-25 19:15   ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-11-04 13:42     ` Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-24 15:55 ` [PATCH 4/5] remoteproc: Add start and shutdown interface " Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-25 19:27   ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-11-04 13:46     ` Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-24 15:55 ` [PATCH 5/5] remoteproc: Modifying probe for initializing q6v55 specific resources Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi
2016-10-25 19:35   ` Bjorn Andersson
2016-11-04 13:47     ` Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi

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=20161025190512.GN7509@tuxbot \
    --to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
    --cc=akdwived@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=kaushalk@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=spjoshi@codeaurora.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: link

Linux-ARM-MSM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/0 linux-arm-msm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-arm-msm linux-arm-msm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm \
		linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-arm-msm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git