Re: [PATCH 2/5] remoteproc: Adding q6v55 specific regulator, clk, reset interface.

[Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi <akdwived@codeaurora.org>]

On 10/26/2016 12:35 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> 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.
Already in patch 1/5 have explained reason of not using the GCC to reset 
pasting same here again

Infact i had done it the way suggested before i sent out initial
patchset, but then when i discussed with internal clock team, they said 
they will
not support MSS RESET to be done via GCC because

"MSS_RESET is not a block reset, GCC reset controller is used only when 
we need a BCR to be reset,
and which has a special purpose. MSS RESET doesn't fall under block 
resets, it is not a clock and
cannot be associated with clock."

Downstream also MSS RESET is programmed through ioremap
>
>> 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.
OK, Have implemented common init and enable function for clock and 
regulator in patchset v2
>
>> +
>> +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.
OK , Have used clock array to initialize and enable clocks for q6 in 
patchset v2
>
>> +
>> +	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.
OK, Have removed print also
>
>> +	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.
OK, Infact check was not required for v56 applicable to 8996, so have 
removed them.
>
>> +		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?
OK
>
>> +	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).
OK.
>
>> +	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.
code is reorganized yet i am using unvote flag but in transparent way.
i am setting unvote flag during enable and making it false during disable.
so that we unvote only if we have voted earlier.
>
>> +		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
can not drop due to reason explained already that i can not use GCC for 
MSS reset.
>
>> +
>>   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.
OK.
>
>> +
>> +	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.
OK.
>
>> +	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
Can not drop as can not use GCC for MSS_RESET due to reason explained above.
>
>> +
>>   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
>>