[RFC PATCH 1/4] memory: tegra124-emc: Add EMC driver

Stéphane Marchesin stephane.marchesin at gmail.com
Wed Jun 18 15:19:27 PDT 2014

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.reding at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:23:47PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> On 06/17/2014 06:15 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> >On 06/17/2014 06:16 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> >>On 06/16/2014 10:02 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> >>>On 06/16/2014 07:35 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> >>>>+#ifdef CONFIG_TEGRA124_EMC
>> >>>>+int tegra124_emc_reserve_bandwidth(unsigned int consumer, unsigned
>> >>>>long rate);
>> >>>>+void tegra124_emc_set_floor(unsigned long freq);
>> >>>>+void tegra124_emc_set_ceiling(unsigned long freq);
>> >>>>+#else
>> >>>>+int tegra124_emc_reserve_bandwidth(unsigned int consumer, unsigned
>> >>>>long rate)
>> >>>>+{ return -ENODEV; }
>> >>>>+void tegra124_emc_set_floor(unsigned long freq)
>> >>>>+{ return; }
>> >>>>+void tegra124_emc_set_ceiling(unsigned long freq)
>> >>>>+{ return; }
>> >>>>+#endif
>> >>>
>> >>>I'll repeat what I said off-list so that we can have the whole
>> >>>conversation on the list:
>> >>>
>> >>>That looks like a custom Tegra-specific API. I think it'd be much better
>> >>>to integrate this into the common clock framework as a standard clock
>> >>>constraints API. There are other use-cases for clock constraints besides
>> >>>EMC scaling (e.g. some in audio on Tegra, and I'm sure many on other
>> >>>SoCs too).
>> >>
>> >>Yes, I wrote a bit in the cover letter about our requirements and how
>> >>they map to the CCF. Could you please comment on that?
>> >
>> >My comments remain the same. I believe this is something that belongs in
>> >the clock driver, or at the least, some API that takes a struct clock as
>> >its parameter, so that drivers can use the existing DT clock lookup
>> >mechanism.
>> Ok, let me put this strawman here to see if I have gotten close to what you
>> have in mind:
>> * add per-client accounting (Rabin's patches referenced before)
>> * add clk_set_floor, to be used by cpufreq, load stats, etc.
>> * add clk_set_ceiling, to be used by battery drivers, thermal, etc.
>> * an EMC driver would collect bandwidth and latency requests from consumers
>> and call clk_set_floor on the EMC clock.
>> * the EMC driver would also register for rate change notifications in the
>> EMC clock and would update the latency allowance registers at that point.
> Latency allowance registers are part of the MC rather than the EMC. So I
> think we have two options: a) have a unified driver for MC and EMC or b)
> provide two parts of the API in two drivers.
> Or perhaps c), create a generic framework that both MC and EMC can
> register with (bandwidth for EMC, latency for MC).

Is there any motivation for keeping MC and EMC separate? In my mind,
the solution was always to handle those together.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list