Re: [PATCH 0/3] drm/gk20a: support for reclocking

From: Peter De Schrijver
Date: Fri Jul 11 2014 - 06:54:36 EST

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 03:49:06AM +0200, Alex Courbot wrote:
> On 07/10/2014 06:43 PM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 09:34:34AM +0200, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> >> This series adds support for reclocking on GK20A. The first two patches touch
> >> the clock subsystem to allow GK20A to operate, by making the presence of the
> >> thermal and voltage devices optional, and allowing pstates to be provided
> >> directly instead of being probed using the BIOS (which Tegra does not have).
> >>
> >> The last patch adds the GK20A clock device. Arguably the clock can be seen as a
> >> stripped-down version of what is seen on NVE0, however instead of using NVE0
> >> support has been written from scratch using the ChromeOS kernel as a basis.
> >> There are several reasons for this:
> >>
> >> - The ChromeOS driver uses a lookup table for the P coefficient which I could
> >> not find in the NVE0 driver,
> >> - Some registers that NVE0 expects to find are not present on GK20A (e.g.
> >> 0x137120 and 0x137140),
> >> - Calculation of MNP is done differently from what is performed in
> >> nva3_pll_calc(), and it might be interesting to compare the two methods,
> >> - All the same, the programming sequence is done differently in the ChromeOS
> >> driver and NVE0 could possibly benefit from it (?)
> >>
> >> It would be interesting to try and merge both, but for now I prefer to have the
> >> two coexisting to ensure proper operation on GK20A and besure I don't break
> >> dGPU support. :)
> >>
> >> Regarding the first patch, one might argue that I could as well add thermal
> >> and voltage devices to GK20A. The reason this is not done is because these
> >> currently depend heavily on the presence of a BIOS, and will require a rework
> >> similar to that done in patch 2 for clocks. I would like to make sure this
> >> approach is approved because applying it to other subdevs.
> >
> > I think this should use CCF so we can use pre and post rate change notifiers
> > to hookup vdd_gpu DVS.
> Do you mean that we should turn the Nouveau gk20a clock driver into a
> consumer of this CCF clock? I have nothing against this, but note that
> Nouveau can also perform DVS on its own, as the pstates can also contain
> a voltage to be applied to the volt device (not yet implemented in this
> series).

Yes. For Tegra I think it makes sense to move DVS out of the individual
drivers. Then we can share the code which has to deal with building the OPP
tables with other DVS rails (eg. vdd_core) for example. Often there are also
chip specific quirks to be dealt with (such as the maximum allowed voltage step
or voltage relationships between rails), which are easier to handle in common


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at