Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Make use of of_match data for offsets and row size

From: Manivannan Sadhasivam
Date: Tue Sep 08 2020 - 16:13:37 EST

Next message: Krzysztof Kozlowski: "[PATCH 3/7] power: supply: bq27xxx: adjust whitespace"
Previous message: Manivannan Sadhasivam: "Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Document SM8250 compatible"
In reply to: Amit Kucheria: "Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Make use of of_match data for offsets and row size"
Next in thread: Amit Kucheria: "Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Make use of of_match data for offsets and row size"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 0908, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 1:27 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam
> <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > For preparing the driver to handle further SoC revisions, let's use the
> > of_match data for getting the device specific offsets and row size instead
> > of defining them globally.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
> > ---
> > drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 66 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > index ccea34f61152..41853db7c9b8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> > @@ -19,15 +19,21 @@
> > #define LUT_L_VAL GENMASK(7, 0)
> > #define LUT_CORE_COUNT GENMASK(18, 16)
> > #define LUT_VOLT GENMASK(11, 0)
> > -#define LUT_ROW_SIZE 32
> > #define CLK_HW_DIV 2
> > #define LUT_TURBO_IND 1
> >
> > -/* Register offsets */
> > -#define REG_ENABLE 0x0
> > -#define REG_FREQ_LUT 0x110
> > -#define REG_VOLT_LUT 0x114
> > -#define REG_PERF_STATE 0x920
> > +struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data {
> > + u32 reg_enable;
> > + u32 reg_freq_lut;
> > + u32 reg_volt_lut;
> > + u32 reg_perf_state;
> > + u8 lut_row_size;
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct qcom_cpufreq_data {
> > + void __iomem *base;
> > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> > +};
> >
> > static unsigned long cpu_hw_rate, xo_rate;
> > static bool icc_scaling_enabled;
> > @@ -76,10 +82,11 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_update_opp(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > unsigned int index)
> > {
> > - void __iomem *perf_state_reg = policy->driver_data;
> > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data = data->soc_data;
> > unsigned long freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> >
> > - writel_relaxed(index, perf_state_reg);
> > + writel_relaxed(index, data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> >
> > if (icc_scaling_enabled)
> > qcom_cpufreq_set_bw(policy, freq);
> > @@ -91,7 +98,8 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_target_index(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> >
> > static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> > {
> > - void __iomem *perf_state_reg;
> > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> > struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> > unsigned int index;
> >
> > @@ -99,9 +107,10 @@ static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> > if (!policy)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - perf_state_reg = policy->driver_data;
> > + data = policy->driver_data;
> > + soc_data = data->soc_data;
> >
> > - index = readl_relaxed(perf_state_reg);
> > + index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> > index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> >
> > return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > @@ -110,12 +119,13 @@ static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> > static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > unsigned int target_freq)
> > {
> > - void __iomem *perf_state_reg = policy->driver_data;
> > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data = data->soc_data;
> > unsigned int index;
> > unsigned long freq;
> >
> > index = policy->cached_resolved_idx;
> > - writel_relaxed(index, perf_state_reg);
> > + writel_relaxed(index, data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> >
> > freq = policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> > arch_set_freq_scale(policy->related_cpus, freq,
> > @@ -125,8 +135,7 @@ static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > }
> >
> > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > - struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > - void __iomem *base)
> > + struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > {
> > u32 data, src, lval, i, core_count, prev_freq = 0, freq;
> > u32 volt;
> > @@ -134,6 +143,8 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > struct dev_pm_opp *opp;
> > unsigned long rate;
> > int ret;
> > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *drv_data = policy->driver_data;
> > + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data = drv_data->soc_data;
> >
> > table = kcalloc(LUT_MAX_ENTRIES + 1, sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!table)
> > @@ -160,14 +171,14 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(struct device *cpu_dev,
> > }
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < LUT_MAX_ENTRIES; i++) {
> > - data = readl_relaxed(base + REG_FREQ_LUT +
> > - i * LUT_ROW_SIZE);
> > + data = readl_relaxed(drv_data->base + soc_data->reg_freq_lut +
> > + i * soc_data->lut_row_size);
> > src = FIELD_GET(LUT_SRC, data);
> > lval = FIELD_GET(LUT_L_VAL, data);
> > core_count = FIELD_GET(LUT_CORE_COUNT, data);
> >
> > - data = readl_relaxed(base + REG_VOLT_LUT +
> > - i * LUT_ROW_SIZE);
> > + data = readl_relaxed(drv_data->base + soc_data->reg_volt_lut +
> > + i * soc_data->lut_row_size);
> > volt = FIELD_GET(LUT_VOLT, data) * 1000;
> >
> > if (src)
> > @@ -237,6 +248,20 @@ static void qcom_get_related_cpus(int index, struct cpumask *m)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data qcom_soc_data = {
>
> rename this to sdm845_soc_data?
>

Nah, this is not specific to SDM845. Atleast in mainline, there are 3 SoCs
using this compatible.

> Or even better, maybe just use the IP version number for this IP block
> so that all SoCs using that IP version can use this struct?
>

Since the SoCs are using the same compatible it makes sense to use the same
name for the of_data. I don't think it is a good idea to use different name
for the of_data since the differentiation has to happen at compatible level.

Thanks,
Mani

> > + .reg_enable = 0x0,
> > + .reg_freq_lut = 0x110,
> > + .reg_volt_lut = 0x114,
> > + .reg_perf_state = 0x920,
> > + .lut_row_size = 32,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpufreq_hw_match[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw", .data = &qcom_soc_data },
> > + {}
> > +};
> > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_cpufreq_hw_match);
> > +
> > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > {
> > struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
> > @@ -246,6 +271,8 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > struct device *cpu_dev;
> > struct resource *res;
> > void __iomem *base;
> > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> > + const struct of_device_id *match;
> > int ret, index;
> >
> > cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> > @@ -275,8 +302,23 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > if (!base)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > + data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!data) {
> > + ret = -ENOMEM;
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + match = of_match_device(qcom_cpufreq_hw_match, &pdev->dev);
> > + if (!match) {
> > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > + goto error;
> > + }
> > +
> > + data->soc_data = match->data;
> > + data->base = base;
> > +
> > /* HW should be in enabled state to proceed */
> > - if (!(readl_relaxed(base + REG_ENABLE) & 0x1)) {
> > + if (!(readl_relaxed(base + data->soc_data->reg_enable) & 0x1)) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Domain-%d cpufreq hardware not enabled\n", index);
> > ret = -ENODEV;
> > goto error;
> > @@ -289,9 +331,9 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > goto error;
> > }
> >
> > - policy->driver_data = base + REG_PERF_STATE;
> > + policy->driver_data = data;
> >
> > - ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(cpu_dev, policy, base);
> > + ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(cpu_dev, policy);
> > if (ret) {
> > dev_err(dev, "Domain-%d failed to read LUT\n", index);
> > goto error;
> > @@ -315,13 +357,13 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > {
> > struct device *cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(policy->cpu);
> > - void __iomem *base = policy->driver_data - REG_PERF_STATE;
> > + struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data = policy->driver_data;
> > struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
> >
> > dev_pm_opp_remove_all_dynamic(cpu_dev);
> > dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_remove_table(policy->related_cpus);
> > kfree(policy->freq_table);
> > - devm_iounmap(&pdev->dev, base);
> > + devm_iounmap(&pdev->dev, data->base);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -391,12 +433,6 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_driver_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return cpufreq_unregister_driver(&cpufreq_qcom_hw_driver);
> > }
> >
> > -static const struct of_device_id qcom_cpufreq_hw_match[] = {
> > - { .compatible = "qcom,cpufreq-hw" },
> > - {}
> > -};
> > -MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_cpufreq_hw_match);
> > -
> > static struct platform_driver qcom_cpufreq_hw_driver = {
> > .probe = qcom_cpufreq_hw_driver_probe,
> > .remove = qcom_cpufreq_hw_driver_remove,
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >

Next message: Krzysztof Kozlowski: "[PATCH 3/7] power: supply: bq27xxx: adjust whitespace"
Previous message: Manivannan Sadhasivam: "Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Document SM8250 compatible"
In reply to: Amit Kucheria: "Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Make use of of_match data for offsets and row size"
Next in thread: Amit Kucheria: "Re: [PATCH 4/7] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Make use of of_match data for offsets and row size"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]