R: R: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Document Krait CPU Cache scaling

[ansuelsmth]

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> Inviato: lunedì 10 agosto 2020 14:45
> A: ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: 'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'Rafael J. Wysocki'
> <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Rob Herring' <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Oggetto: Re: R: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Document Krait
> CPU Cache scaling
> 
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 01:15:24PM +0200, ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Messaggio originale-----
> > > Da: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> > > Inviato: lunedì 10 agosto 2020 10:02
> > > A: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rafael J. Wysocki
> > > <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> > > pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Oggetto: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: Document Krait
> CPU
> > > Cache scaling
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 01:49:12AM +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > > > Document dedicated Krait CPU Cache Scaling driver.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../bindings/cpufreq/krait-cache-scale.yaml   | 92
> > > +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/krait-
> > > cache-scale.yaml
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/krait-cache-
> > > scale.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/krait-cache-
> > > scale.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..f10b1f386a99
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/krait-cache-
> > > scale.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/cpufreq/krait-cache-scale.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Krait Cpu Cache Frequency Scaling dedicated driver
> > > > +
> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > +
> > > > +description: |
> > > > +  This Scale the Krait CPU Cache Frequency and optionally voltage
> > > > +  when the Cpu Frequency is changed (using the cpufreq notifier).
> > > > +
> > > > +  Cache is scaled with the max frequency across all core and the
cache
> > > > +  frequency will scale based on the configured threshold in the
dts.
> > > > +
> > > > +  The cache is hardcoded to 3 frequency bin, idle, nominal and
high.
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    const: qcom,krait-cache
> > > > +
> > >
> > > How does this fit in the standard cache hierarchy nodes ? Extend the
> > > example to cover that.
> > >
> >
> > I think i didn't understand this question. You mean that I should put
> > in the example how the standard l2 cache nodes are defined?
> >
> 
> I was referring to something like below which I found now in
> arch/arm/boot/dts/qcom-msm8974.dtsi:
> 	L2: l2-cache {
> 		compatible = "cache";
> 		cache-level = <2>;
> 		qcom,saw = <&saw_l2>;
> 	};
> 
> > > > +  clocks:
> > > > +    description: Phandle to the L2 CPU clock
> > > > +
> > > > +  clock-names:
> > > > +    const: "l2"
> > > > +
> > > > +  voltage-tolerance:
> > > > +    description: Same voltage tollerance of the Krait CPU
> > > > +
> > > > +  l2-rates:
> > > > +    description: |
> > > > +      Frequency the L2 cache will be scaled at.
> > > > +      Value is in Hz.
> > > > +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
> > > > +    items:
> > > > +      - description: idle
> > > > +      - description: nominal
> > > > +      - description: high
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why can't you re-use the standard OPP v2 bindings ?
> > >
> >
> > Isn't overkill to use the OPP v2 bindings to represent the the microvolt
> > related to the le freq? Is the OPP v1 sufficient?
> 
> Should be fine if it is allowed. v2 came out in the flow of my thought
> and was not intentional.
> 
> > Also I can't find a way to reflect this specific case where the l2 rates
> > are changed based on the cpu freq value? Any idea about that?
> >
> 
> OK, I am always opposed to giving such independent controls in the kernel
> as one can play around say max cpu freq and lowest cache or vice-versa
> and create instabilities. IMO this should be completely hidden from OS.
> But I know these are old platforms, so I will shut my mouth ;)
> 

If we really want to deny this practice, I can add a check in the probe
function to fail if the l2 freq threshold is less than the cpu freq. 

> --
> Regards,
> Sudeep