Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/17] OPP: Allow to request stub voltage regulators

From: Dmitry Osipenko
Date: Tue Oct 30 2018 - 11:48:30 EST

On 10/29/18 9:53 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 26-10-18, 15:03, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 10/24/18 9:41 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> On 22-10-18, 15:12, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> Because there is one Tegra20 board (tegra20-trimslice) that doesn't declare
>>>> necessary regulators, but we want to have CPU frequency scaling. I couldn't
>>>> find board schematics and so don't know if CPU / CORE voltages are fixed on
>>>> Trim-Slice or it is just preferable not to have DVFS for that board, it is an
>>>> outlet-powered device [0]. Hence tegra20-cpufreq driver will request a dummy
>>>> regulators when appropriate.
>>> We have been using the regulator_get_optional() variant until now in the OPP
>>> core to make sure that we don't do DVFS for the CPU without the mandatory
>>> regulators being present, as that may make things unstable and cause harm to the
>>> SoC if we try to take CPU to frequency range over the currently programmed
>>> regulator can support.
>>> Now coming back to tegra-20 SoC, which actually requires a regulator normally by
>>> design. On one of the boards (which is outlet powered), you aren't sure if there
>>> is a programmable regulator or not, or if DVFS should really be done or not.
>>> Isn't it worth checking the same from Tegra maintainers, or whomsoever has
>>> information on that board ?
>> I'll try to find out more detailed information for the next revision of the patchset.
> Thanks Dmitry.
>> What would happen if there actually was a regulator
> Please preserve the '>' from previous replies at the beginning of the
> lines. Otherwise it looks as if you have written the above line. :)
>>> and its default settings aren't good enough for high end frequencies ?
>> Usually this causes kernel/applications crashes and/or machine hang.
> Sure. I also do remember from some guys (maybe TI), where they
> mentioned that such scenarios can harm the hardware as well sometimes.
> Don't remember the details though.
>> And because you are moving to regulator_get() API for
>>> the entire SoC (i.e. its cpufreq driver), people will never find the missing
>>> regulator.
>> Regulators core prints info message when dummy regulator is being used.
> Sure, but they are easy to miss and they are only seen by developers
> not regular users of a machine.
>>> If we can do it safely for all tegra20 boards, why not migrate to using
>>> regulator_get() instead of regulator_get_optional() in the OPP core API itself
>>> for everyone ?
>> This should be a platform-specific decision. For Tegra we know that regulators should be in a good state at kernel boot time, I don't think that this applies to other platforms.
> Based on the other discussion with Lucas on this thread, I don't think
> this is correct any more ?
> Don't get me wrong, I am all good for changes and another API change
> doesn't matter much to me. I am just wondering if it would be the
> right approach to fix the issue. Why not rather call
> dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() conditionally and avoid calling it for the
> specific tegra20 board.

The right approach should be to specify device tree correctly. Probably we won't need this change at all with the correct DT, will see.

Calling dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() conditionally should work, but that is extra churning in the driver that I tried to avoid.