Re: [PATCH 0/4] cpufreq support for the Raspberry Pi

[Nicolas Saenz Julienne]

On Wed, 2019-06-05 at 13:34 +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 05.06.19 um 13:00 schrieb Nicolas Saenz Julienne:
> > Hi Stefan,
> > thanks for the review, I took note of your code comments.
> > 
> > On Wed, 2019-06-05 at 11:46 +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
> > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > 
> > > Am 04.06.19 um 19:32 schrieb Nicolas Saenz Julienne:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > this series aims at adding cpufreq support to the Raspberry Pi family of
> > > > boards.
> > > > 
> > > > The previous revision can be found at: 
> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/20/431
> > > > 
> > > > The series first factors out 'pllb' from clk-bcm2385 and creates a new
> > > > clk driver that operates it over RPi's firmware interface[1]. We are
> > > > forced to do so as the firmware 'owns' the pll and we're not allowed to
> > > > change through the register interface directly as we might race with the
> > > > over-temperature and under-voltage protections provided by the firmware.
> > > it would be nice to preserve such design decision in the driver as a
> > > comment, because the cover letter usually get lost.
> > > > Next it creates a minimal cpufreq driver that populates the CPU's opp
> > > > table, and registers cpufreq-dt. Which is needed as the firmware
> > > > controls the max and min frequencies available.
> > > I tested your series on top of Linux 5.2-rc1 with multi_v7_defconfig and
> > > manually enable this drivers. During boot with Raspbian rootfs i'm
> > > getting the following:
> > > 
> > > [    1.177009] cpu cpu0: failed to get clock: -2
> > > [    1.183643] cpufreq-dt: probe of cpufreq-dt failed with error -2
> > This is surprising, who could be creating a platform_device for cpufreq-dt
> > apart from raspberrypi-cpufreq? Just to make things clear, you're using the
> > device tree from v5.2-rc1 (as opposed to the Raspbian one)?
> 
> sorry my fault, i thought it already has been replaced. The behavior in
> this unexpected case is fine, since it doesn't crash.
> 
> I replaced the the DTB with the mainline one, but now i'm getting this:
> 
> [    4.566068] cpufreq: cpufreq_online: CPU0: Running at unlisted freq:
> 600000 KHz
> [    4.580690] cpu cpu0: dev_pm_opp_set_rate: Invalid target frequency 0
> [    4.594391] cpufreq: __target_index: Failed to change cpu frequency: -22

For the record this fixes it:

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
index aa51756fd4d6..edb71eefe9cf 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
@@ -1293,7 +1293,7 @@ static int clk_core_determine_round_nolock(struct clk_core
*core,
        } else if (core->ops->round_rate) {
                rate = core->ops->round_rate(core->hw, req->rate,
                                             &req->best_parent_rate);
-               if (rate < 0)
+               if (IS_ERR_VALUE(rate))
                        return rate;

                req->rate = rate;

round_rate() returns a 'long' value, yet 'pllb' in rpi3b+ goes as high as
2.8GHz, which only fits in an 'unsigned long'. This explains why I didn't see
this issue with RPI2b.

I'll add the patch to the series.

Regards,
Nicolas

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part