[PATCH V8 4/8] devfreq: add mediatek cci devfreq
andrew-sh.cheng
andrew-sh.cheng at mediatek.com
Wed Mar 31 07:21:05 BST 2021
On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 16:04 +0800, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3/23/21 8:33 PM, Andrew-sh.Cheng wrote:
> > From: "Andrew-sh.Cheng" <andrew-sh.cheng at mediatek.com>
> >
> > This adds a devfreq driver for the Cache Coherent Interconnect (CCI)
> > of the Mediatek MT8183.
> >
> > On the MT8183 the CCI is supplied by the same regulator as the LITTLE
> > cores. The driver is notified when the regulator voltage changes
> > (driven by cpufreq) and adjusts the CCI frequency to the maximum
> > possible value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew-sh.Cheng <andrew-sh.cheng at mediatek.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/devfreq/Kconfig | 10 ++
> > drivers/devfreq/Makefile | 1 +
> > drivers/devfreq/mt8183-cci-devfreq.c | 198 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 209 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 drivers/devfreq/mt8183-cci-devfreq.c
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> > index f56132b0ae64..2538255ac2c1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> > @@ -111,6 +111,16 @@ config ARM_IMX8M_DDRC_DEVFREQ
> > This adds the DEVFREQ driver for the i.MX8M DDR Controller. It allows
> > adjusting DRAM frequency.
> >
> > +config ARM_MT8183_CCI_DEVFREQ
> > + tristate "MT8183 CCI DEVFREQ Driver"
> > + depends on ARM_MEDIATEK_CPUFREQ
> > + help
> > + This adds a devfreq driver for Cache Coherent Interconnect
> > + of Mediatek MT8183, which is shared the same regulator
> > + with cpu cluster.
> > + It can track buck voltage and update a proper CCI frequency.
> > + Use notification to get regulator status.
> > +
> > config ARM_TEGRA_DEVFREQ
> > tristate "NVIDIA Tegra30/114/124/210 DEVFREQ Driver"
> > depends on ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC || ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC || \
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/Makefile b/drivers/devfreq/Makefile
> > index a16333ea7034..991ef7740759 100644
> > --- a/drivers/devfreq/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/Makefile
> > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DEVFREQ_GOV_PASSIVE) += governor_passive.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_BUS_DEVFREQ) += exynos-bus.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_IMX_BUS_DEVFREQ) += imx-bus.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_IMX8M_DDRC_DEVFREQ) += imx8m-ddrc.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MT8183_CCI_DEVFREQ) += mt8183-cci-devfreq.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_RK3399_DMC_DEVFREQ) += rk3399_dmc.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_TEGRA_DEVFREQ) += tegra30-devfreq.o
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/mt8183-cci-devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/mt8183-cci-devfreq.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..018543db7bae
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/devfreq/mt8183-cci-devfreq.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2021 MediaTek Inc.
> > +
> > + * Author: Andrew-sh.Cheng <andrew-sh.cheng at mediatek.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > +#include <linux/devfreq.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> > +#include <linux/time.h>
> > +
> > +#define MAX_VOLT_LIMIT (1150000)
> > +
> > +struct cci_devfreq {
> > + struct devfreq *devfreq;
> > + struct regulator *cpu_reg;
> > + struct clk *cci_clk;
> > + int old_vproc;
>
> nitpick. how about using 'old_voltage'?
> because 'vproc' is not easy for understanding.
I will modify it on next patch version.
>
> > + unsigned long old_freq;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int mtk_cci_set_voltage(struct cci_devfreq *cci_df, int vproc)
>
> nitpick: how about changing 'vproc -> voltage'?
I will modify it on next patch version.
>
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = regulator_set_voltage(cci_df->cpu_reg, vproc,
> > + MAX_VOLT_LIMIT);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + cci_df->old_vproc = vproc;
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mtk_cci_devfreq_target(struct device *dev, unsigned long *freq,
> > + u32 flags)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > + struct cci_devfreq *cci_df = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > + struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> > + unsigned long opp_rate, opp_voltage, old_voltage;
> > +
> > + if (!cci_df)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (cci_df->old_freq == *freq)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + opp_rate = *freq;
> > + opp = devfreq_recommended_opp(dev, &opp_rate, 1);
> > + opp_voltage = dev_pm_opp_get_voltage(opp);
> > + dev_pm_opp_put(opp);
> > +
> > + old_voltage = cci_df->old_vproc;
> > + if (old_voltage == 0)
> > + old_voltage = regulator_get_voltage(cci_df->cpu_reg);
> > +
> > + // scale up: set voltage first then freq
> > + if (opp_voltage > old_voltage) {
> > + ret = mtk_cci_set_voltage(cci_df, opp_voltage);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_err("cci: failed to scale up voltage\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = clk_set_rate(cci_df->cci_clk, *freq);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_err("%s: failed cci to set rate: %d\n", __func__,
> > + ret);
> > + mtk_cci_set_voltage(cci_df, old_voltage);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + // scale down: set freq first then voltage
> > + if (opp_voltage < old_voltage) {
> > + ret = mtk_cci_set_voltage(cci_df, opp_voltage);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_err("cci: failed to scale down voltage\n");
> > + clk_set_rate(cci_df->cci_clk, cci_df->old_freq);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + cci_df->old_freq = *freq;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static struct devfreq_dev_profile cci_devfreq_profile = {
> > + .target = mtk_cci_devfreq_target,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int mtk_cci_devfreq_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct device *cci_dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct cci_devfreq *cci_df;
> > + struct devfreq_passive_data *passive_data;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + cci_df = devm_kzalloc(cci_dev, sizeof(*cci_df), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!cci_df)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + cci_df->cci_clk = devm_clk_get(cci_dev, "cci_clock");
> > + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(cci_df->cci_clk);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > + dev_err(cci_dev, "failed to get clock for CCI: %d\n",
> > + ret);
>
> Use dev_err_probe() to handle EPROBE_DEFER case. It makes code more simple.
I will modify it on next patch version.
>
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + cci_df->cpu_reg = devm_regulator_get_optional(cci_dev, "proc");
> > + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(cci_df->cpu_reg);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > + dev_err(cci_dev, "failed to get regulator for CCI: %d\n",
> > + ret);
>
> ditto. Use dev_err_probe()
I will modify it on next patch version.
>
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > + ret = regulator_enable(cci_df->cpu_reg);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(cci_dev, "enable buck for cci fail\n");
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(cci_dev);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(cci_dev, "Fail to get OPP table for CCI: %d\n", ret);
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, cci_df);
> > +
> > + passive_data = devm_kzalloc(cci_dev, sizeof(*passive_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!passive_data) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto err_opp;
> > + }
> > +
> > + passive_data->parent_type = CPUFREQ_PARENT_DEV;
> > +
> > + cci_df->devfreq = devm_devfreq_add_device(cci_dev,
> > + &cci_devfreq_profile,
> > + DEVFREQ_GOV_PASSIVE,
> > + passive_data);
> > + if (IS_ERR(cci_df->devfreq)) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(cci_df->devfreq);
> > + dev_err(cci_dev, "cannot create cci devfreq device:%d\n", ret);
> > + goto err_opp;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > +err_opp:
> > + dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(cci_dev);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int mtk_cci_devfreq_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + struct device *cci_dev = &pdev->dev;
> > + struct cci_devfreq *cci_df;
> > + struct notifier_block *opp_nb;
> > +
> > + cci_df = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > + opp_nb = &cci_df->opp_nb;
> > +
> > + dev_pm_opp_unregister_notifier(cci_dev, opp_nb);
>
> Why do you call this function without registration?
> If you want to catch the OPP changes of devfreq,
> you can use devfreq_register_opp_notifier/devfreq_unregister_opp_notifier
> functions.
Yes, I will move it to
[V8,7/8] devfreq: mediatek: cci devfreq register opp notification for
SVS support
>
> > + dev_pm_opp_of_remove_table(cci_dev);
> > + regulator_disable(cci_df->cpu_reg);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_id
> > + mediatek_cci_of_match[] = {
>
> Need to change it as following at same line:
> static const __maybe_unused struct of_device_idmediatek_cci_of_match[] = {
Hi Chanwoo,
I don't quite understand when to us __maybe_unused
This is a suggestion from patch version 2.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10876449/
Please give me some advice.
Thank you.
>
>
> > + { .compatible = "mediatek,mt8183-cci" },
> > + { },
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mediatek_cci_of_match);
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver cci_devfreq_driver = {
> > + .probe = mtk_cci_devfreq_probe,
> > + .remove = mtk_cci_devfreq_remove,
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "mediatek-cci-devfreq",
> > + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(mediatek_cci_of_match),
> > + },
> > +};
> > +
> > +module_platform_driver(cci_devfreq_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Mediatek CCI devfreq driver");
> > +MODULE_AUTHOR("Andrew-sh.Cheng <andrew-sh.cheng at mediatek.com>");
> > +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> >
>
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list