Re: [TEGRA194_CPUFREQ Patch 1/3] firmware: tegra: adding function to get BPMP data

[Thierry Reding]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 12:05:20PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:21:38PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 04-12-19, 10:33, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > Yeah, the code that registers this device is in drivers/base/cpu.c in
> > > register_cpu(). It even retrieves the device tree node for the CPU from
> > > device tree and stores it in cpu->dev.of_node, so we should be able to
> > > just pass &cpu->dev to tegra_bpmp_get() in order to retrieve a reference
> > > to the BPMP.
> > > 
> > > That said, I'm wondering if perhaps we could just add a compatible
> > > string to the /cpus node for cases like this where we don't have an
> > > actual device representing the CPU complex. There are a number of CPU
> > > frequency drivers that register dummy devices just so that they have
> > > something to bind a driver to.
> > > 
> > > If we allow the /cpus node to represent the CPU complex (if no other
> > > "device" does that yet), we can add a compatible string and have the
> > > cpufreq driver match on that.
> > > 
> > > Of course this would be slightly difficult to retrofit into existing
> > > drivers because they'd need to remain backwards compatible with existing
> > > device trees. But it would allow future drivers to do this a little more
> > > elegantly. For some SoCs this may not matter, but especially once you
> > > start depending on additional resources this would come in handy.
> > > 
> > > Adding Rob and the device tree mailing list for feedback on this idea.
> > 
> > Took some time to find this thread, but something around this was
> > suggested by Rafael earlier.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8139001.Q4eV8YG1Il@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> I gave this a try and came up with the following:
> 
> --- >8 ---
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
> index f4ede86e32b4..e4462f95f0b3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra194.dtsi
> @@ -1764,6 +1764,9 @@ bpmp_thermal: thermal {
>  	};
>  
>  	cpus {
> +		compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-ccplex";
> +		nvidia,bpmp = <&bpmp>;
> +
>  		#address-cells = <1>;
>  		#size-cells = <0>;
>  
> --- >8 ---
> 
> Now I can do something rougly like this, although I have a more complete
> patch locally that also gets rid of all the global variables because we
> now actually have a struct platform_device that we can anchor everything
> at:
> 
> --- >8 ---
> static const struct of_device_id tegra194_cpufreq_of_match[] = {
> 	{ .compatible = "nvidia,tegra194-ccplex", },
> 	{ /* sentinel */ }
> };
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tegra194_cpufreq_of_match);
> 
> static struct platform_driver tegra194_ccplex_driver = {
> 	.driver = {
> 		.name = "tegra194-cpufreq",
> 		.of_match_table = tegra194_cpufreq_of_match,
> 	},
> 	.probe = tegra194_cpufreq_probe,
> 	.remove = tegra194_cpufreq_remove,
> };
> module_platform_driver(tegra194_ccplex_driver);
> --- >8 ---
> 
> I don't think that's exactly what Rafael (Cc'ed) had in mind, since the
> above thread seems to have mostly talked about binding a driver to each
> individual CPU.
> 
> But this seems a lot better than having to instantiate a device from
> scratch just so that a driver can bind to it and it allows additional
> properties to be associated with the CCPLEX device.
> 
> Rob, any thoughts on this from a device tree point of view? The /cpus
> bindings don't mention the compatible property, but there doesn't seem
> to be anything in the bindings that would prohibit its use.
> 
> If we can agree on that, I can forward my local changes to Sumit for
> inclusion or reference.

Rob, do you see any reason why we shouldn't be able to use a compatible
string in the /cpus node for devices such as Tegra194 where there is no
dedicated hardware block for the CCPLEX?

Thierry

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature