From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter De Schrijver Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/11] cpufreq: tegra124-cpufreq: extend to support Tegra210 Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:28:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20180313092816.GW6190@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> References: <1517934852-23255-1-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> <1517934852-23255-10-git-send-email-pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> <20180309081438.GO6190@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> <50b05dda-4577-0c86-a8e5-eb7095ee1f59@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50b05dda-4577-0c86-a8e5-eb7095ee1f59@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lgirdwood@gmail.com, broonie@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:14:17AM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 09/03/18 08:14, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 11:25:04PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> > >> On 06/02/18 16:34, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > >>> Tegra210 has a very similar CPU clocking scheme than Tegra124. So add > >>> support in this driver. Also allow for the case where the CPU voltage is > >>> controlled directly by the DFLL rather than by a separate regulator object. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver > >>> --- > >>> drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c | 15 ++++++++------- > >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c > >>> index 4353025..f8e01a8 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra124-cpufreq.c > >>> @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ static void tegra124_cpu_switch_to_pllx(struct tegra124_cpufreq_priv *priv) > >>> { > >>> clk_set_parent(priv->cpu_clk, priv->pllp_clk); > >>> clk_disable_unprepare(priv->dfll_clk); > >>> - regulator_sync_voltage(priv->vdd_cpu_reg); > >>> + if (priv->vdd_cpu_reg) > >>> + regulator_sync_voltage(priv->vdd_cpu_reg); > >>> clk_set_parent(priv->cpu_clk, priv->pllx_clk); > >>> } > >>> > >>> @@ -89,10 +90,10 @@ static int tegra124_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>> return -ENODEV; > >>> > >>> priv->vdd_cpu_reg = regulator_get(cpu_dev, "vdd-cpu"); > >>> - if (IS_ERR(priv->vdd_cpu_reg)) { > >>> - ret = PTR_ERR(priv->vdd_cpu_reg); > >>> - goto out_put_np; > >>> - } > >>> + if (IS_ERR(priv->vdd_cpu_reg) != -EPROBE_DEFER) > >>> + priv->vdd_cpu_reg = NULL; > >>> + else > >>> + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > >> > >> I am still not sure that we should rely on the fact that the regulator > >> is not present in DT to imply that we do not need it. I think that we > >> should be checking if we are using I2C mode here. > >> > > > > The cpufreq driver doesn't know this however. Also the current approach of > > setting the same voltage when switching to pll_x is incorrect. The CVB > > tables when using pll_x include more margin than when using the DFLL. > > Ah yes I see now. However, we are going to need to update the DT doc, > because 'vdd-cpu-supply' is listed as required. > Ok. Peter.