[PATCH] soc: mediatek: Fix random hang up issue while kernel init

[James Liao]

Hi Daniel,

On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 16:07 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> Hmm... below is my current understanding.
> 
> In the current software architecture, we have split the "venc"
> subsystem register space into two parts (two dt nodes), with each node
> handled instantiated as its own  platform device, and handled by a
> different platform driver:
> 
> vencsys: clock-controller at 18000000 {
>   compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-vencsys", "syscon";
>   reg = <0 0x18000000 0 0x1000>;
>   #clock-cells = <1>;
> };
> 
> /* TBD - a venc driver has not been posted to the list so I don't
> really know yet what it will look like */
>  venc: encoder@~18000000 {
>    compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-venc?";
>    reg = <0 ~0x18000000 0 ?>;
>    clocks = <& <&vencsys CLK_VENC_CKE1>, <&vencsys CLK_VENC_CKE0>, ...;
>    clock-names = "apb", "smi", ...;
>    ...
>  };
> 
> Each independent driver must take appropriate independent action to
> ensure that any clock required to access its associated registers is
> enabled when accessing said registers.
> In other words,
>  * the venc *clock-controller* driver that must enable any clocks
> required to access the *clock control* registers
>  * the venc *encoder* driver must enable clocks any clocks required to
> access the *encoder* registers

> Actually, the situation is a little worse that this, since we also
> have a 'larb' node in the same register space, whose driver must also
> ensure that VENC_SEL is enabled before accessing its registers:
> 
> larb3: larb at 18001000 {
>   compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-smi-larb";
>   reg = <0 0x18001000 0 0x1000>;
>   mediatek,smi = <&smi_common>;
>   power-domains = <&scpsys MT8173_POWER_DOMAIN_VENC>;
>   clocks = <&vencsys CLK_VENC_CKE1>, <&vencsys CLK_VENC_CKE0>;
>   clock-names = "apb", "smi";
> };
> 
> Personally, I am not opposed to using the power-domain enable/disable
> as a proxy for also enabling/disabling the "subsystem register bank"
> clock as is done in this patch and by the scpsys driver in general.
> However, it feels a bit like an abuse of the power domain api.
> 
> > I preferred to keep venc_sel on during VENC power on because I'm not
> > sure there is any other framework may control VENC's registers during
> > kernel init.
> 
> The misunderstanding here is the interpretation of "VENC's registers".
> In this case, the registers in question are those owned by the
> "vencsys: clock-controller at 18000000" node, and the driver accessing
> them is drivers/clk/mediatek/clk-gate.c.

The situation is more complex than you mentioned above. VENC (0x18000000
~ 0x1800ffff) for example, if we want to avoid hanging up while
accessing registers, we need to:
 
 - Prevent venc_sel off while VENC is powered on.
 - Prevent mm_sel off while MM is powered on.

First, it's not worth to control power domains in clock control path
because it's too expensive. So we want to keep clock on before accessing
registers or during the domain is powered on.

Besides, modeling a clock controller as a consumer of power domain may
not a good idea, because there are power domains be consumers of clocks,
such as:

	[MT8173_POWER_DOMAIN_MM] = {
		.name = "mm",
		[...]
		.clk_id = MT8173_CLK_MM,
		[...]
	},

Second, if we want to avoid hanging up by enabling related top clocks in
clock controllers, we need to clock on venc_sel and mm_sel before *each
clock operations*, and then clock off them after clock operations. That
means:

- To check venc_cke0's state:
 = clk_prepare mm_sel and venc_sel (where to prepare?)
  - It may turn on related PLLs, and it can't be invoked in an atomic
context.
 = clk_enable mm_sel and venc_sel.
 = Read VENC's clock register.
 = clk_disable mm_sel and venc_sel.
 = clk_unprepare mm_sel and venc_sel (where to unprepare?)
  - It may turn off PLLs, and it can't be invoked in an atomic context.
 = Return venc_cke0's state.

Overhead is a reason. The clock framework's API flow (prepare - enable -
disable - unprepare) is another reason to reject the solution in clock
controllers, because prepare/unprepare is a non-atomic operation but
operations to access registers may be a atomic context.



Best regards,

James