Re: [PATCH V5 11/18] clk: tegra210: Add support for Tegra210 clocks

[Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 09:25:43PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 16.07.2019 21:19, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет:
> > 
> > On 7/16/19 9:50 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/16/19 8:00 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>> 16.07.2019 11:06, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> >>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:24:26PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote:
> >>>>>> OK, Will add to CPUFreq driver...
> >>>>>>> The other thing that also need attention is that T124 CPUFreq driver
> >>>>>>> implicitly relies on DFLL driver to be probed first, which is icky.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Should I add check for successful dfll clk register explicitly in
> >>>>>> CPUFreq driver probe and defer till dfll clk registers?
> >>> Probably you should use the "device links". See [1][2] for the example.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2.1/source/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c#L2383
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/device_link.html
> >>>
> >>> Return EPROBE_DEFER instead of EINVAL if device_link_add() fails. And
> >>> use of_find_device_by_node() to get the DFLL's device, see [3].
> >>>
> >>> [3]
> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/devfreq/tegra20-devfreq.c#n100
> >>>
> >> Will go thru and add...
> 
> Looks like I initially confused this case with getting orphaned clock.
> I'm now seeing that the DFLL driver registers the clock and then
> clk_get(dfll) should be returning EPROBE_DEFER until DFLL driver is
> probed, hence everything should be fine as-is and there is no real need
> for the 'device link'. Sorry for the confusion!
> 
> >>>>> Sorry, I didn't follow the mail thread. Just regarding the DFLL part.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you know it, the DFLL clock is one of the CPU clock sources and
> >>>>> integrated with DVFS control logic with the regulator. We will not
> >>>>> switch
> >>>>> CPU to other clock sources once we switched to DFLL. Because the
> >>>>> CPU has
> >>>>> been regulated by the DFLL HW with the DVFS table (CVB or OPP table
> >>>>> you see
> >>>>> in the driver.). We shouldn't reparent it to other sources with unknew
> >>>>> freq/volt pair. That's not guaranteed to work. We allow switching to
> >>>>> open-loop mode but different sources.
> >>> Okay, then the CPUFreq driver will have to enforce DFLL freq to PLLP's
> >>> rate before switching to PLLP in order to have a proper CPU voltage.
> >>
> >> PLLP freq is safe to work for any CPU voltage. So no need to enforce
> >> DFLL freq to PLLP rate before changing CCLK_G source to PLLP during
> >> suspend
> >>
> > Sorry, please ignore my above comment. During suspend, need to change
> > CCLK_G source to PLLP when dfll is in closed loop mode first and then
> > dfll need to be set to open loop.
> 
> Okay.
> 
> >>>>> And I don't exactly understand why we need to switch to PLLP in CPU
> >>>>> idle
> >>>>> driver. Just keep it on CL-DVFS mode all the time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In SC7 entry, the dfll suspend function moves it the open-loop
> >>>>> mode. That's
> >>>>> all. The sc7-entryfirmware will handle the rest of the sequence to
> >>>>> turn off
> >>>>> the CPU power.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In SC7 resume, the warmboot code will handle the sequence to turn on
> >>>>> regulator and power up the CPU cluster. And leave it on PLL_P. After
> >>>>> resuming to the kernel, we re-init DFLL, restore the CPU clock
> >>>>> policy (CPU
> >>>>> runs on DFLL open-loop mode) and then moving to close-loop mode.
> >>> The DFLL is re-inited after switching CCLK to DFLL parent during of the
> >>> early clocks-state restoring by CaR driver. Hence instead of having odd
> >>> hacks in the CaR driver, it is much nicer to have a proper
> >>> suspend-resume sequencing of the device drivers. In this case CPUFreq
> >>> driver is the driver that enables DFLL and switches CPU to that clock
> >>> source, which means that this driver is also should be responsible for
> >>> management of the DFLL's state during of suspend/resume process. If
> >>> CPUFreq driver disables DFLL during suspend and re-enables it during
> >>> resume, then looks like the CaR driver hacks around DFLL are not needed.
> >>>
> >>>>> The DFLL part looks good to me. BTW, change the patch subject to "Add
> >>>>> suspend-resume support" seems more appropriate to me.
> >>>>>
> >>>> To clarify this, the sequences for DFLL use are as follows (assuming
> >>>> all
> >>>> required DFLL hw configuration has been done)
> >>>>
> >>>> Switch to DFLL:
> >>>> 0) Save current parent and frequency
> >>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
> >>>> 2) Enable DFLL
> >>>> 3) Change cclk_g parent to DFLL
> >>>> For OVR regulator:
> >>>> 4) Change PWM output pin from tristate to output
> >>>> 5) Enable DFLL PWM output
> >>>> For I2C regulator:
> >>>> 4) Enable DFLL I2C output
> >>>> 6) Program DFLL to closed loop mode
> >>>>
> >>>> Switch away from DFLL:
> >>>> 0) Change cclk_g parent to PLLP so the CPU frequency is ok for any
> >>>> vdd_cpu voltage
> >>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
> >>>>
> > I see during switch away from DFLL (suspend), cclk_g parent is not
> > changed to PLLP before changing dfll to open loop mode.
> > 
> > Will add this ...
> 
> The CPUFreq driver switches parent to PLLP during the probe, similar
> should be done on suspend.
> 
> I'm also wondering if it's always safe to switch to PLLP in the probe.
> If CPU is running on a lower freq than PLLP, then some other more
> appropriate intermediate parent should be selected.
> 

Yes it is always safe because 408MHz is lower than fmax @ Vmin.

Peter.