From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BF6C76192 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEA02173B for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:00:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="JhZ2WrN0" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729533AbfGPWAo (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:00:44 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:39474 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728235AbfGPWAo (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 18:00:44 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id v18so21495411ljh.6; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:00:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y/Y6rAvIXNEXplIykQ+xb3spxR+3k35uJWVvxDUPFww=; b=JhZ2WrN0r0gVjbbkmFu/lE9YeAo7JaI9K1E5tK423gV+XAIIk6oI3Jc1tuFl0M0tQj kcUtN6Jz6u1Z3UKQ0XREk6HFUf4lrd8o76tNsELG9P5hKBJhi8cAvXYCrC7k7pwWfGLe 2MiJW8/DAndSBMPb2ohystpLyTgtNlVzSTJljw2cTuMigMDBgN9e7kFfDELX4Ek+OV47 wSp7KEe96OLbhihjnBftq46a0MxCTWKt6k0LdY1gtkZDKUUYslJD9XzwufnNxt9BXKqF kOKic6rMO6j+DdGm5FTtJAHRur8v0ntJw0OmY/bDnXZvEwk2WpzONyZS7zNNKH6r2oaA IoZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=y/Y6rAvIXNEXplIykQ+xb3spxR+3k35uJWVvxDUPFww=; b=EUxB7s/p7bd+8t0iynSeuTz9hoDouuO5C6E4MfPl3svjpQHxHjIzIJ1u5cwQjd8qEk JSHv65CCBWExFcnP/RE8f8LD1zMO3A4nxfH4NTGr5z9RNWMntrB3druvM0aNrqsuXbGl P5sdG0CQKRdthDdQTwt+GXls2IvZcZFRxZGoznrFV/yeZvuvSNTunG4zxTUxUo2+E5mv 6wWH/wcCDx5D823i/8aeJilOMhGvZcbESaQaUOqK/QwK4jzudRFBHS9EP1gkYTvEXjQP 4AMsDvvzV9deFLivga9IBznggh2OHJqfp150xOUdoj65EkoY/0Rjq9IKDuHE5feHSPzX bWGg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWk01bEsXvkCPR3PVLwln/ZE1Zfk6lSGGb3hI56BP6rxJW0NeNC 8BrFUxiEspQ1+d8HCCf7+m9GnFyD X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxfCJOtQwKi0jNqc/fiu8jzJ45nu/ng+a41Ez4ec/FgFAVkdYSXpRdxHDJW8Sz2frkc89WpZw== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9a10:: with SMTP id o16mr18588473lji.95.1563314440196; Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:00:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.145] (ppp79-139-233-208.pppoe.spdop.ru. [79.139.233.208]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id w1sm3065103lfe.50.2019.07.16.15.00.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:00:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 11/18] clk: tegra210: Add support for Tegra210 clocks To: Sowjanya Komatineni , Peter De Schrijver , Joseph Lo Cc: thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, stefan@agner.ch, mark.rutland@arm.com, pgaikwad@nvidia.com, sboyd@kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, jckuo@nvidia.com, talho@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mperttunen@nvidia.com, spatra@nvidia.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org References: <3938092a-bbc7-b304-641d-31677539598d@nvidia.com> <932d4d50-120c-9191-6a9a-23bf9c96633b@nvidia.com> <0ee055ad-d397-32e5-60ee-d62c14c6f77b@gmail.com> <86fc07d5-ab2e-a52a-a570-b1dfff4c20fe@nvidia.com> <20190716083701.225f0fd9@dimatab> <21266e4f-16b1-4c87-067a-16c07c803b6e@nvidia.com> <20190716080610.GE12715@pdeschrijver-desktop.Nvidia.com> <72b5df8c-8acb-d0d0-ebcf-b406e8404973@nvidia.com> <2b701832-5548-7c83-7c17-05cc2f1470c8@nvidia.com> <76e341be-6f38-2bc1-048e-1aa6883f9b88@gmail.com> <0706576a-ce61-1cf3-bed1-05f54a1e2489@nvidia.com> <5b2945c5-fcb2-2ac0-2bf2-df869dc9c713@gmail.com> <27641e30-fdd1-e53a-206d-71e1f23343fd@gmail.com> <10c4b9a2-a857-d124-c22d-7fd71a473079@nvidia.com> <0ee06d1a-310d-59f7-0aa6-b688b33447f5@nvidia.com> From: Dmitry Osipenko Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 01:00:38 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0ee06d1a-310d-59f7-0aa6-b688b33447f5@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 17.07.2019 0:35, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет: > > On 7/16/19 2:21 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 17.07.2019 0:12, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет: >>> On 7/16/19 1:47 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> 16.07.2019 22:26, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет: >>>>> On 7/16/19 11:43 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>>>> 16.07.2019 21:30, Sowjanya Komatineni пишет: >>>>>>> On 7/16/19 11:25 AM, 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> CPU parents are PLL_X, PLL_P, and dfll. PLL_X always runs at higher >>>>>>> rate >>>>>>> so switching to PLL_P during CPUFreq probe prior to dfll clock >>>>>>> enable >>>>>>> should be safe. >>>>>> AFAIK, PLLX could run at ~200MHz. There is also a divided output of >>>>>> PLLP >>>>>> which CCLKG supports, the PLLP_OUT4. >>>>>> >>>>>> Probably, realistically, CPU is always running off a fast PLLX during >>>>>> boot, but I'm wondering what may happen on KEXEC. I guess ideally >>>>>> CPUFreq driver should also have a 'shutdown' callback to teardown >>>>>> DFLL >>>>>> on a reboot, but likely that there are other clock-related >>>>>> problems as >>>>>> well that may break KEXEC and thus it is not very important at the >>>>>> moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>> During bootup CPUG sources from PLL_X. By PLL_P source above I meant >>>>> PLL_P_OUT4. >>>>> >>>>> As per clock policies, PLL_X is always used for high freq like >800Mhz >>>>> and for low frequency it will be sourced from PLLP. >>>> Alright, then please don't forget to pre-initialize PLLP_OUT4 rate to a >>>> reasonable value using tegra_clk_init_table or assigned-clocks. >>> PLLP_OUT4 rate update is not needed as it is safe to run at 408Mhz >>> because it is below fmax @ Vmin >> So even 204MHz CVB entries are having the same voltage as 408MHz, >> correct? It's not instantly obvious to me from the DFLL driver's code >> where the fmax @ Vmin is defined, I see that there is the min_millivolts >> and frequency entries starting from 204MHZ defined per-table. > Yes at Vmin CPU Fmax is ~800Mhz. So anything below that will work at > Vmin voltage and PLLP max is 408Mhz. Thank you for the clarification. It would be good to have that commented in the code as well.