Re: [PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: mediatek: Add MT8173 cpufreq driver

From: Sascha Hauer
Date: Thu Apr 23 2015 - 08:02:18 EST

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:27:26PM +0800, pi-cheng.chen wrote:
> This patch implements MT8173 specific cpufreq driver with OPP table defined
> in the driver code.
>
> Signed-off-by: pi-cheng.chen <pi-cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm | 6 +
> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c | 509 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 516 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> index 1b06fc4..25643c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig.arm
> @@ -132,6 +132,12 @@ config ARM_KIRKWOOD_CPUFREQ
> This adds the CPUFreq driver for Marvell Kirkwood
> SoCs.
>
> +config ARM_MT8173_CPUFREQ
> + bool "Mediatek MT8173 CPUFreq support"
> + depends on ARCH_MEDIATEK && REGULATOR
> + help
> + This adds the CPUFreq driver support for Mediatek MT8173 SoC.
> +
> config ARM_OMAP2PLUS_CPUFREQ
> bool "TI OMAP2+"
> depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile b/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
> index 82a1821..da9d616 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Makefile
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_HIGHBANK_CPUFREQ) += highbank-cpufreq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_IMX6Q_CPUFREQ) += imx6q-cpufreq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_INTEGRATOR) += integrator-cpufreq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_KIRKWOOD_CPUFREQ) += kirkwood-cpufreq.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_MT8173_CPUFREQ) += mt8173-cpufreq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_OMAP2PLUS_CPUFREQ) += omap-cpufreq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_PXA2xx_CPUFREQ) += pxa2xx-cpufreq.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PXA3xx) += pxa3xx-cpufreq.o
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..a310e72
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mt8173-cpufreq.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,509 @@
> +/*
> +* Copyright (c) 2015 Linaro Ltd.
> +* Author: Pi-Cheng Chen <pi-cheng.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> +*
> +* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> +* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> +* published by the Free Software Foundation.
> +*
> +* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> +* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> +* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> +* GNU General Public License for more details.
> +*/
> +
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> +#include <linux/cpufreq.h>
> +#include <linux/cpumask.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +
> +#define MIN_VOLT_SHIFT 100000
> +#define MAX_VOLT_SHIFT 200000
> +
> +#define OPP(f, vp, vs) { \
> + .freq = f, \
> + .vproc = vp, \
> + .vsram = vs, \
> + }
> +
> +struct mtk_cpu_opp {
> + unsigned int freq;
> + int vproc;
> + int vsram;
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * The struct cpu_dvfs_info holds necessary information for doing CPU DVFS of
> + * each cluster. For Mediatek SoCs, each CPU cluster in SoC has two voltage
> + * inputs, Vproc and Vsram. For some cluster in SoC, the two voltage inputs are
> + * supplied by different PMICs. In this case, when scaling up/down the voltage
> + * of Vsram and Vproc, the two voltage inputs need to be controlled under a
> + * hardware limitation: 100mV < Vsram - Vproc < 200mV
> + * When scaling up/down the clock frequency of a cluster, the clock source need
> + * to be switched to another stable PLL clock temporarily, and switched back to
> + * the original PLL after the it becomes stable at target frequency.
> + * Hence the voltage inputs of cluster need to be set to an intermediate voltage
> + * before the clock frequency being scaled up/down.
> + */
> +
> +struct cpu_dvfs_info {
> + cpumask_t cpus;
> +
> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp_tbl;
> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *intermediate_opp;
> + int nr_opp;
> +
> + struct regulator *proc_reg;
> + struct regulator *sram_reg;
> + struct clk *cpu_clk;
> + struct clk *inter_pll;
> +};
> +
> +/*
> + * This is a temporary solution until we have new OPPv2 bindings. Therefore we
> + * could describe the OPPs with (freq, volt, volt) tuple properly in device
> + * tree.
> + */
> +
> +/* OPP table for LITTLE cores of MT8173 */
> +struct mtk_cpu_opp mt8173_l_opp[] = {
> + OPP(507000000, 859000, 0),
> + OPP(702000000, 908000, 0),
> + OPP(1001000000, 983000, 0),
> + OPP(1105000000, 1009000, 0),
> + OPP(1183000000, 1028000, 0),
> + OPP(1404000000, 1083000, 0),
> + OPP(1508000000, 1109000, 0),
> + OPP(1573000000, 1125000, 0),
> +};
> +
> +/* OPP table for big cores of MT8173 */
> +struct mtk_cpu_opp mt8173_b_opp[] = {
> + OPP(507000000, 828000, 928000),
> + OPP(702000000, 867000, 967000),
> + OPP(1001000000, 927000, 1027000),
> + OPP(1209000000, 968000, 1068000),
> + OPP(1404000000, 1007000, 1107000),
> + OPP(1612000000, 1049000, 1149000),
> + OPP(1807000000, 1089000, 1150000),
> + OPP(1989000000, 1125000, 1150000),
> +};

Do you really need the SRAM voltages? Isn't the SRAM voltage just CPU
core voltage + 100mV +- tolerance?

> +
> +static inline int need_voltage_trace(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info)
> +{
> + return (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info->proc_reg) &&
> + !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(info->sram_reg));
> +}
> +
> +static struct mtk_cpu_opp *cpu_opp_find_freq_ceil(struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp_tbl,
> + int nr_opp,
> + unsigned long rate)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_opp; i++)
> + if (opp_tbl[i].freq >= rate)
> + return &opp_tbl[i];
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Query the exact voltage value that is largest previous to the input voltage
> + * value supported by the regulator
> + */
> +static int get_regulator_voltage_ceil(struct regulator *regulator, int voltage)
> +{
> + int cnt, i, volt = -1;
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(regulator))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + cnt = regulator_count_voltages(regulator);
> + for (i = 0; i < cnt && volt < voltage; i++)
> + volt = regulator_list_voltage(regulator, i);
> +
> + return (i >= cnt) ? -EINVAL : volt;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Query the exact voltage value that is smallest following to the input voltage
> + * value supported by the regulator
> + */
> +static int get_regulator_voltage_floor(struct regulator *regulator, int voltage)
> +{
> + int cnt, i, volt = -1;
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(regulator))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + cnt = regulator_count_voltages(regulator);
> + /* skip all trailing 0s in the list of supported voltages */
> + for (i = cnt - 1; i >= 0 && volt <= 0; i--)
> + volt = regulator_list_voltage(regulator, i);
> +
> + for (; i >= 0; i--) {
> + volt = regulator_list_voltage(regulator, i);
> + if (volt <= voltage)
> + return volt;
> + }
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static int mtk_cpufreq_voltage_trace(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info,
> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp)
> +{
> + struct regulator *proc_reg = info->proc_reg;
> + struct regulator *sram_reg = info->sram_reg;
> + int old_vproc, new_vproc, old_vsram, new_vsram, vsram, vproc, ret;
> +
> + old_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(proc_reg);
> + old_vsram = regulator_get_voltage(sram_reg);
> +
> + new_vproc = opp->vproc;
> + new_vsram = opp->vsram;
> +
> + /*
> + * In the case the voltage is going to be scaled up, Vsram and Vproc
> + * need to be scaled up step by step. In each step, Vsram needs to be
> + * set to (Vproc + 200mV) first, then Vproc is set to (Vsram - 100mV).
> + * Repeat the step until Vsram and Vproc are set to target voltage.
> + */
> + if (old_vproc < new_vproc) {
> +next_up_step:
> + old_vsram = regulator_get_voltage(sram_reg);
> +
> + vsram = (new_vsram - old_vproc < MAX_VOLT_SHIFT) ?
> + new_vsram : old_vproc + MAX_VOLT_SHIFT;
> + vsram = get_regulator_voltage_floor(sram_reg, vsram);
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(sram_reg, vsram, vsram);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;

This introspecting the regulators for possible voltages looks hacky and
unnecessary. regulator_set_voltage() can be passed minimum and maximum
values, why don't you use it to increase the voltage within sensible
limit, like

regulator_set_voltage(sram_reg, old_vsram + 100000, old_vsram + 200000);

or similar?

> +
> + vproc = (new_vsram == vsram) ?
> + new_vproc : vsram - MIN_VOLT_SHIFT;
> + vproc = get_regulator_voltage_ceil(proc_reg, vproc);
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(proc_reg, vproc, vproc);
> + if (ret) {
> + regulator_set_voltage(sram_reg, old_vsram, old_vsram);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (new_vproc == vproc && new_vsram == vsram)
> + return 0;

Here you assume that the voltages can be exactly reached. That does not
need to be the case, for example with a different PMIC.

> +
> + old_vproc = vproc;
> + goto next_up_step;

Use C loop instructions to create loops. Using gotos for loops creates
readable code only in very rare cases (and this is not one of those)

> +
> + /*
> + * In the case the voltage is going to be scaled down, Vsram and Vproc
> + * need to be scaled down step by step. In each step, Vproc needs to be
> + * set to (Vsram - 200mV) first, then Vproc is set to (Vproc + 100mV).
> + * Repeat the step until Vsram and Vproc are set to target voltage.
> + */
> + } else if (old_vproc > new_vproc) {
> +next_down_step:
> + old_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(proc_reg);
> +
> + vproc = (old_vsram - new_vproc < MAX_VOLT_SHIFT) ?
> + new_vproc : old_vsram - MAX_VOLT_SHIFT;
> + vproc = get_regulator_voltage_ceil(proc_reg, vproc);
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(proc_reg, vproc, vproc);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + vsram = (new_vproc == vproc) ?
> + new_vsram : vproc + MIN_VOLT_SHIFT;
> + vsram = get_regulator_voltage_floor(sram_reg, vsram);
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage(sram_reg, vsram, vsram);
> + if (ret) {
> + regulator_set_voltage(proc_reg, old_vproc, old_vproc);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (new_vproc == vproc && new_vsram == vsram)
> + return 0;
> +
> + old_vsram = vsram;
> + goto next_down_step;
> + }
> +
> + WARN_ON(1);

Why warn? You have nothing to do and that should be just fine.

> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info,
> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp)
> +{
> + if (need_voltage_trace(info))
> + return mtk_cpufreq_voltage_trace(info, opp);
> + else
> + return regulator_set_voltage(info->proc_reg, opp->vproc,
> + opp->vproc);
> +}
> +
> +static int mt8173_cpufreq_set_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> + unsigned int index)
> +{
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table = policy->freq_table;
> + struct clk *cpu_clk = policy->clk;
> + struct clk *armpll = clk_get_parent(cpu_clk);
> + struct cpu_dvfs_info *info;
> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *new_opp, *target_opp, *inter_opp, *orig_opp;
> + long freq_hz, orig_freq_hz;
> + int old_vproc, ret;
> +
> + info = (struct cpu_dvfs_info *)policy->driver_data;
> + inter_opp = info->intermediate_opp;
> + orig_freq_hz = clk_get_rate(cpu_clk);
> + orig_opp = cpu_opp_find_freq_ceil(info->opp_tbl, info->nr_opp,
> + orig_freq_hz);
> + if (!orig_opp)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + old_vproc = regulator_get_voltage(info->proc_reg);
> + freq_hz = freq_table[index].frequency * 1000;
> + new_opp = cpu_opp_find_freq_ceil(info->opp_tbl, info->nr_opp, freq_hz);

Since the frequency table and the opp_tbl have the same indices:

new_opp = info->opp_tbl[index];

> + target_opp = new_opp;
> +
> + if (!new_opp)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (target_opp->vproc < inter_opp->vproc)
> + target_opp = info->intermediate_opp;
> +
> + if (old_vproc < target_opp->vproc) {

old_vproc is used only once, so using regulator_get_voltage(info->proc_reg)
directly here make the code clearer.

> + ret = mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(info, target_opp);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("cpu%d: failed to scale up voltage!\n",
> + policy->cpu);
> + mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(info, orig_opp);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + ret = clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, info->inter_pll);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("cpu%d: failed to re-parent cpu clock!\n",
> + policy->cpu);
> + mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(info, orig_opp);
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = clk_set_rate(armpll, freq_hz);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("cpu%d: failed to scale cpu clock rate!\n",
> + policy->cpu);
> + clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, armpll);
> + mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(info, orig_opp);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + ret = clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, armpll);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("cpu%d: failed to re-parent cpu clock!\n",
> + policy->cpu);
> + mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(info, inter_opp);
> + WARN_ON(1);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + if (new_opp->vproc < inter_opp->vproc) {
> + ret = mt8173_cpufreq_set_voltage(info, new_opp);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("cpu%d: failed to scale down voltage!\n",
> + policy->cpu);
> + clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, info->inter_pll);
> + clk_set_rate(armpll, orig_freq_hz);
> + clk_set_parent(cpu_clk, armpll);
> + return ret;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int mt8173_cpufreq_cpu_opp_fixup(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info)
> +{
> + struct mtk_cpu_opp *opp_tbl = info->opp_tbl;
> + struct regulator *proc_reg = info->proc_reg;
> + struct regulator *sram_reg = info->sram_reg;
> + int vproc, vsram, i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < info->nr_opp; i++) {
> + vproc = opp_tbl[i].vproc;
> + vsram = opp_tbl[i].vsram;
> +
> + vproc = get_regulator_voltage_ceil(proc_reg, vproc);
> +
> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sram_reg))
> + vsram = get_regulator_voltage_ceil(sram_reg, vsram);
> +
> + if (vproc < 0 || (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sram_reg) && vsram < 0)) {
> + pr_err("%s: Failed to get voltage setting of OPPs\n",
> + __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + opp_tbl[i].vproc = vproc;
> + opp_tbl[i].vsram = vsram;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int mt8173_cpufreq_dvfs_init(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info)
> +{
> + struct device *cpu_dev;
> + struct regulator *proc_reg, *sram_reg;
> + struct clk *cpu_clk, *inter_pll;
> + unsigned long rate;
> + int cpu, ret;
> +
> + cpu = cpumask_first(&info->cpus);
> +
> +try_next_cpu:
> + cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> + proc_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "proc");
> + sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram");
> + cpu_clk = clk_get(cpu_dev, "cpu");
> + inter_pll = clk_get(cpu_dev, "intermediate");
> +
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(proc_reg) || IS_ERR_OR_NULL(cpu_clk) ||
> + IS_ERR_OR_NULL(inter_pll)) {
> + cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, &info->cpus);
> + if (cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + goto try_next_cpu;
> + }

Use a loop.

> +
> + /* Both PROC and SRAM regulators are present. This is a big
> + * cluster, and needs to do voltage tracing. */
> + if (!(IS_ERR_OR_NULL(proc_reg) || IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sram_reg))) {
> + info->opp_tbl = mt8173_b_opp;
> + info->nr_opp = sizeof(mt8173_b_opp) / sizeof(mt8173_b_opp[0]);
> + } else {
> + info->opp_tbl = mt8173_l_opp;
> + info->nr_opp = sizeof(mt8173_l_opp) / sizeof(mt8173_l_opp[0]);
> + }
> +
> + info->proc_reg = proc_reg;
> + info->sram_reg = sram_reg;
> + info->cpu_clk = cpu_clk;
> + info->inter_pll = inter_pll;
> +
> + ret = mt8173_cpufreq_cpu_opp_fixup(info);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("%s: Failed to fixup opp table: %d\n", __func__, ret);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + rate = clk_get_rate(info->inter_pll);
> + info->intermediate_opp = cpu_opp_find_freq_ceil(info->opp_tbl,
> + info->nr_opp,
> + rate);
> + if (!info->intermediate_opp) {
> + pr_err("%s: Failed to setup intermediate opp\n", __func__);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void mt8173_cpufreq_dvfs_release(struct cpu_dvfs_info *info)
> +{
> + regulator_put(info->proc_reg);
> + regulator_put(info->sram_reg);
> + clk_put(info->cpu_clk);
> + clk_put(info->inter_pll);
> +
> + kfree(info);
> +}
> +
> +static int mt8173_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> +{
> + struct cpu_dvfs_info *info;
> + struct cpufreq_frequency_table *freq_table;
> + int ret, i;
> +
> + info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!info)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cpumask_copy(&info->cpus, &cpu_topology[policy->cpu].core_sibling);
> + ret = mt8173_cpufreq_dvfs_init(info);
> + if (ret) {
> + pr_err("%s: Failed to initialize DVFS info: %d\n", __func__,
> + ret);
> + goto out_dvfs_release;
> + }
> +
> + freq_table = kcalloc(info->nr_opp, sizeof(*freq_table), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!freq_table) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_dvfs_release;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < info->nr_opp; i++)
> + freq_table[i].frequency = info->opp_tbl[i].freq / 1000;
> +
> + freq_table[i].frequency = CPUFREQ_TABLE_END;

You are corrupting memory here.

Sascha


--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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/