Re: [PATCH V2 0/8] PM / OPP: Multiple regulator support

[Dave Gerlach]

Hi,
On 10/23/2016 11:26 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-10-16, 20:08, Dave Gerlach wrote:
> > Overall this series looks good to me apart from a few small things. Most
> > importantly I was able to get a working implementation using two regulators
> > on ti dra7xx platform with proper sequencing built on top of this series. We
> > have cpu regulator and Adaptive body bias (abb) regulator that must be
> > scaled in a certain order before or after clock scaling and I was able to
> > implement a rough custom set_rate to perform this and ran some dvfs stress
> > tests that all worked fine.
>
> Thanks for testing it buddy.
>
> > First comment, I think the platform specific set_rate is a good place to
> > hook in for adaptive voltage scaling as well. I was able to implement TI
> > Class0 AVS in the same code by using the requested transition voltage as a
> > reference and programming AVS voltage using that, along with scaling the
> > additional regulators in sequence (the original multi regulator
> > functionality).
>
> Hmm, interesting..
>
> > I would think some people would want to use this even with
> > single regulator platforms, no?
>
> Maybe, but I would like to see such user code first. It may be possible to
> handle much of AVS stuff in core so that everyone isn't required to do it.

Ok, I think it would be a logical next step to look at once this series 
gets accepted. For now, the particular implementation I did just looks 
up an optimized value for the requested voltage from a register and 
programs the optimal value instead of the requested voltage.

> > This raises some concerns about dependencies/probe sequencing. Right now we
> > just need to make sure the cpufreq-dt driver probes after we have called
> > _set_regulators, but if our platform code fails cpufreq-dt currently will
> > treat this as no regulator needed for the platform and operate without one,
> > which will likely hang the system. Is there a good way to to guarantee this
> > doesn't happen? My main concern is that if we plan to provide a platform
> > specific set-rate function, we should have a way to indicate this and
> > prevent things from progressing if it isn't yet ready.
> >
> > Again, overall I think it solves the multi regulator problem, and it works
> > well for AVS as well. For the series:
> >
> > Tested-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@xxxxxx>
>
> Thanks.
>
> For the concern you shared about, does the below patch fix it ? I will include
> that in V3 then.

I think what you have shared below is a good safety check but if I 
rename the regulator properties in the DT for the cpu (to vdd and vbb, 
meaning cpufreq detects no regulator) and do *not* call 
dev_pm_opp_set_regulators before cpufreq-dt probes we fail before we 
even get to that point:

[16.946] cpu cpu0: opp_parse_supplies: Invalid number of elements in 
opp-microvolt property (6) with supplies (1)
[16.967] cpu cpu0: _of_add_opp_table_v2: Failed to add OPP, -22
[16.982] cpu cpu0: dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count: OPP table not found (-19)
[16.982] cpu cpu0: OPP table is not ready, deferring probe

This failure is because opp_parse_supplies assumes a count of 1 
regulator if no regulators at all are present and then hard fails if too 
many voltages have been passed for each OPP. It seems we need a check 
much earlier similar to what you suggested below to allow us to defer if 
an OPP has supplied voltages but no regulator has been registered with 
the system. I think this is reasonable even for the 1 regulator case, 
no? If we have passed voltages then we presumably are hoping to use them 
with a regulator, and if no regulators are present, OPP framework should 
defer.

cpufreq-dt won't handle this properly as is, but now that the opp core 
is evolving perhaps it makes sense to modify the resources_available 
check slightly to rely on the OPP core rather than just a dummy 
regulator_get_optional to see if the regulator is ready.

Regards,
Dave

> -------------------------8<-------------------------
>
> From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:45:30 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] PM / OPP: Don't assume platform doesn't have regulators
>
> If the regulators aren't set explicitly by the platform, the OPP core
> assumes that the platform doesn't have any regulator and uses the
> clk-only callback.
>
> If the platform failed to register a regulator with the core, then this
> can turn out to be a dangerous assumption as the OPP core will try to
> change clk without changing regulators.
>
> Handle that properly by making sure that the DT didn't had any entries
> for supply voltages as well.
>
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/opp/core.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> index b69908b74ed6..fb4250532180 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp/core.c
> @@ -737,7 +737,17 @@ int dev_pm_opp_set_rate(struct device *dev, unsigned long target_freq)
>
>  	/* Only frequency scaling */
>  	if (!regulators) {
> -		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		/*
> +		 * DT contained supply ratings? Consider platform failed to set
> +		 * regulators.
> +		 */
> +		if (unlikely(opp->supplies[0].u_volt)) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
> +			dev_err(dev, "%s: Regulator not registered with OPP core\n",
> +				__func__);
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +
>  		return _generic_opp_set_rate_clk_only(dev, clk, old_freq, freq);
>  	}