[PATCH v2 1/7] cpufreq: cpufreq-cpu0: allow optional safe voltage during frequency transitions
Shawn Guo
shawn.guo at linaro.org
Tue Jan 28 06:49:34 EST 2014
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:00:29AM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> 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 */
> >
> > 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.
> 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.
>
> So I tend to prefer the approach in this patch but I am willing to
> consider any suggestions. 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.
To me, it's the best that we reuse cpufreq-cpu0 for exynos without any
changes on cpufreq-cpu0 driver ;)
Shawn
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list