Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 0/3] drm/gk20a: support for reclocking
From: Alexandre Courbot
Date: Sun Jul 13 2014 - 22:09:37 EST
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> On 07/11/2014 10:07 AM, Ben Skeggs wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> This series adds support for reclocking on GK20A. The first two patches
>>> the clock subsystem to allow GK20A to operate, by making the presence of
>>> thermal and voltage devices optional, and allowing pstates to be provided
>>> directly instead of being probed using the BIOS (which Tegra does not
>> Hey Alex,
>> I mentioned a while back I had some stuff in-progress to make
>> implementing this a bit cleaner for you, but as you can probably tell,
>> I didn't get to it yet. It's likely I won't manage to before the next
>> merge window either. So, I'll likely take these patches as-is
>> (assuming no objections on reviews here) and rebase my stuff on top.
> Thanks. You will probably notice that these patches won't apply to your tree
> and require some tweaking. I will probably end up sending a v2 anyway, so
> maybe you should wait for it. If you want to try this version anyway, I have
> fixed-up patches against your tree.
> Note that your tree currently won't build against -next because it uses
> drm_sysfs_connector_add/remove which are not available anymore (replaced by
> drm_connector_register/unregister I believe).
> Oh and while I'm at it, there seems to be a typo in line 131 of clock.h,
> which should read _nouveau_clock_fini and not _nouveau_clock_init.
>>> 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
>>> support has been written from scratch using the ChromeOS kernel as a
>>> There are several reasons for this:
>>> - The ChromeOS driver uses a lookup table for the P coefficient which I
>>> not find in the NVE0 driver,
>> Interesting. Can you give more details on how "PL" works exactly,
>> we'd been operating on the assumption (mainly inherited from code that
>> appeared in xf86-video-nv) that it was always a straight division.
> The pl_to_div table in clock/gk20a.c should give the right coefficients, but
> I have seen contradictory information in our docs. Let me ask the right
> people so we can get to the bottom of this.
So as it turns out this seems to be gk20a-specific. Other Kepler GPUs
use it as a straight division, but gk20a uses a narrower range and
thus requires this table.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/