[PATCH v2 1/7] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: allow optional safe voltage during frequency transitions
Thomas Abraham
ta.omasab at gmail.com
Tue Jan 28 06:36:21 EST 2014
Hi Lukasz,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski at samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Mike
>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Mike Turquette
>> <mturquette at linaro.org> wrote:
>> > Quoting Thomas Abraham (2014-01-18 04:10:51)
>> >> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab at samsung.com>
>> >>
>> >> On some platforms such as the Samsung Exynos, changing the
>> >> frequency of the CPU clock requires changing the frequency of the
>> >> PLL that is supplying the CPU clock. To change the frequency of
>> >> the PLL, the CPU clock is temporarily reparented to another parent
>> >> clock.
>> >>
>> >> The clock frequency of this temporary parent clock could be much
>> >> higher than the clock frequency of the PLL at the time of
>> >> reparenting. Due to the temporary increase in the CPU clock speed,
>> >> the CPU (and any other components in the CPU clock domain such as
>> >> dividers, mux, etc.) have to to be operated at a higher voltage
>> >> level, called the safe voltage level. This patch adds optional
>> >> support to temporarily switch to a safe voltage level during CPU
>> >> frequency transitions.
>> >>
>> >> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab at samsung.com>
>> >
>> > I'm not a fan of this change. This corner case should be abstracted
>> > away somehow. I had talked to Chander Kayshap previously about
>> > handling voltage changes in clock notifier callbacks, which then
>> > renders any voltage change as a trivial part of the clock rate
>> > transition. That means that this "safe voltage" thing could be
>> > handled automagically without any additional code in the CPUfreq
>> > driver.
>> >
>> > There are two nice ways to do this with the clock framework. First
>> > is explicit re-parenting with voltage scaling done in the clock
>> > rate-change notifiers:
>> >
>> > clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, temp_parent);
>> > /* implicit voltage scaling to "safe voltage" happens above */
>> > clk_set_rate(pll, some_rate);
>> > clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, pll);
>> > /* implicit voltage scaling to nominal OPP voltage happens above */
>> >
>
> I must agree with Mike here. In my opinion the above approach is more
> compliant with CCF (as I've pointed it out in my other comment - the
> cpu_clk has more than one parent and we could switch between them when
> needed).
The mux which is used to re-parent is part of the larger opaque cpu
clock type (more like the composite clock). So I am not sure how this
isn't compliant with ccf.
>
>> > The above sequence would require a separate exnyos CPUfreq driver,
>> > due to the added clk_set_parent logic.
>> >
>> > The second way to do this is to abstract the clk re-muxing logic out
>> > into the clk driver, which would allow cpufreq-cpu0 to be used for
>> > the exynos chips.
>>
>> This is the approach this patch series takes (patch 2/7). The clock
>> re-muxing logic is handled by a clock driver code. The difference from
>> what you suggested is that the safe voltage (that may be optionally)
>> required before doing the re-muxing is handled here in cpufreq-cpu0
>> driver.
>>
>> The safe voltage setup can be done in the notifier as you suggested.
>
> If the clk_set_parent() approach is not suitable, then cannot we
> consider using the one from highbank-cpufreq.c?
>
> Here we have cpufreq-cpu0.c which sets voltage of the cpu_clk.
> In the highbank-cpufreq.c there are clock notifiers to change the
> voltage.
>
> Cannot Exynos reuse such approach? Why shall we pollute cpufreq-cpu0.c
> with another solution?
The highbank-cpufreq.c file was introduced because platforms using
this driver did not have the usual regulator to control the voltage.
The first commit of this driver explains this (copied below).
"Highbank processors depend on the external ECME to perform voltage
management based on a requested frequency. Communication between the
A9 cores and the ECME happens over the pl320 IPC channel."
So those platforms had no choice but to use an alternative approach to
control the voltage (and reuse cpufreq-cpu0 as much as possible). The
case with exynos is a different one. cpufreq-cpu0 is fully re-usable
for exynos with the additional support for "safe voltage". If we agree
that there might be existing or future platforms with single
clock/voltage rail that require the "safe voltage" feature, then
adding "safe voltage" support in cpufreq-cpu0 driver seems to be the
right approach.
>
>> But, doing that in cpufreq-cpu0 driver will help other platforms reuse
>> this feature if required. Also, if done here, the regulator handling
>> is localized in this driver which otherwise would need to be handled
>> in two places, cpufreq-cpu0 driver and the clock notifier.
>
> I think that there is a logical distinction between setting voltage for
> cpufreq-cpu0 related clock and increasing voltage of reparented clock.
>
> The former fits naturally to cpufreq-cpu0, when the latter seems like
> some corner case (as Mike pointed out) for Exynos.
Agreed, it is a corner case. But for this corner case, we are
performing some additional actions on the same regulator which is used
in the normal functioning of the driver.
>
>>
>> So I tend to prefer the approach in this patch but I am willing to
>> consider any suggestions.
>
> Thomas, what do you think about highbank-cpufreq.c approach (with
> using clock notifiers)?
I have made a related comment on this above.
>
> Do you think, that it is feasible to reuse it with Exynos?
highbank cpufreq driver is intended for a different purpose so I don't
think it can be reused for exynos. Yes, we can make exynos specific
hacks into highbank driver but how would that be better over the
approach in this patch?
>
>> Shawn, it would be helpful if you could let
>> us know your thoughts on this. I am almost done with testing the v3 of
>> this series and want to post it so if there are any objections to the
>> changes in this patch, please let me know.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas.
>>
>> >
>> > I'm more a fan of explicitly listing the Exact Steps for the cpu opp
>> > transition in a separate exynos-specific CPUfreq driver, but that's
>> > probably an unpopular view.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >> ---
>> >> .../devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt | 7 ++++
>> >> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c | 37
>> >> +++++++++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 4
>> >> deletions(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git
>> >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt
>> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt index
>> >> f055515..37453ab 100644 ---
>> >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt +++
>> >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.txt @@
>> >> -19,6 +19,12 @@ Optional properties:
>> >> - cooling-min-level:
>> >> - cooling-max-level:
>> >> Please refer to
>> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/thermal/thermal.txt. +-
>> >> safe-opp: Certain platforms require that during a opp transition,
>> >> + a system should not go below a particular opp level. For such
>> >> systems,
>> >> + this property specifies the minimum opp to be maintained during
>> >> the
>> >> + opp transitions. The safe-opp value is a tuple with first
>> >> element
>> >> + representing the safe frequency and the second element
>> >> representing the
>> >> + safe voltage.
>> >>
>> >> Examples:
>> >>
>> >> @@ -36,6 +42,7 @@ cpus {
>> >> 396000 950000
>> >> 198000 850000
>> >> >;
>> >> + safe-opp = <396000 950000>
>> >> clock-latency = <61036>; /* two CLK32 periods */
>> >> #cooling-cells = <2>;
>> >> cooling-min-level = <0>;
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> >> b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c index 0c12ffc..075d3d1 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
>> >> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@
>> >>
>> >> static unsigned int transition_latency;
>> >> static unsigned int voltage_tolerance; /* in percentage */
>> >> +static unsigned long safe_frequency;
>> >> +static unsigned long safe_voltage;
>> >>
>> >> static struct device *cpu_dev;
>> >> static struct clk *cpu_clk;
>> >> @@ -64,17 +66,30 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct
>> >> cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index) volt_old =
>> >> regulator_get_voltage(cpu_reg); }
>> >>
>> >> - pr_debug("%u MHz, %ld mV --> %u MHz, %ld mV\n",
>> >> + pr_debug("\n\n%u MHz, %ld mV --> %u MHz, %ld mV\n",
>> >> old_freq / 1000, volt_old ? volt_old / 1000 : -1,
>> >> new_freq / 1000, volt ? volt / 1000 : -1);
>> >>
>> >> /* scaling up? scale voltage before frequency */
>> >> - if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && new_freq > old_freq) {
>> >> + if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && new_freq > old_freq &&
>> >> + new_freq >= safe_frequency) {
>> >> ret = regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg, volt,
>> >> tol); if (ret) {
>> >> pr_err("failed to scale voltage up: %d\n",
>> >> ret); return ret;
>> >> }
>> >> + } else if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && old_freq < safe_frequency) {
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * the scaled up voltage level for the new_freq is
>> >> lower
>> >> + * than the safe voltage level. so set safe_voltage
>> >> + * as the intermediate voltage level and revert it
>> >> + * back after the frequency has been changed.
>> >> + */
>> >> + ret = regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg,
>> >> safe_voltage, tol);
>> >> + if (ret) {
>> >> + pr_err("failed to set safe voltage: %d\n",
>> >> ret);
>> >> + return ret;
>> >> + }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> ret = clk_set_rate(cpu_clk, freq_exact);
>> >> @@ -86,7 +101,8 @@ static int cpu0_set_target(struct
>> >> cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int index) }
>> >>
>> >> /* scaling down? scale voltage after frequency */
>> >> - if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) && new_freq < old_freq) {
>> >> + if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg) &&
>> >> + (new_freq < old_freq || new_freq <
>> >> safe_frequency)) { ret = regulator_set_voltage_tol(cpu_reg, volt,
>> >> tol); if (ret) {
>> >> pr_err("failed to scale voltage down:
>> >> %d\n", ret); @@ -116,6 +132,8 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver
>> >> cpu0_cpufreq_driver = {
>> >>
>> >> static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> >> {
>> >> + const struct property *prop;
>> >> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
>> >> struct device_node *np;
>> >> int ret;
>> >>
>> >> @@ -165,13 +183,24 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_probe(struct
>> >> platform_device *pdev) goto out_put_node;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> + prop = of_find_property(np, "safe-opp", NULL);
>> >> + if (prop) {
>> >> + if (prop->value && (prop->length / sizeof(u32)) ==
>> >> 2) {
>> >> + const __be32 *val;
>> >> + val = prop->value;
>> >> + safe_frequency = be32_to_cpup(val++);
>> >> + safe_voltage = be32_to_cpup(val);
>> >> + } else {
>> >> + pr_err("invalid safe-opp level
>> >> specified\n");
>> >> + }
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> of_property_read_u32(np, "voltage-tolerance",
>> >> &voltage_tolerance);
>> >>
>> >> if (of_property_read_u32(np, "clock-latency",
>> >> &transition_latency)) transition_latency = CPUFREQ_ETERNAL;
>> >>
>> >> if (!IS_ERR(cpu_reg)) {
>> >> - struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
>> >> unsigned long min_uV, max_uV;
>> >> int i;
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 1.6.6.rc2
>> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Lukasz Majewski
>
> Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group
Thanks for your comments Lukasz.
Regards,
Thomas.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list