Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 2/3] soc: qcom: spm: Implement support for SAWv4.1, SDM630/660 L2 AVS

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 19/06/21 00:17, Stephan Gerhold ha scritto:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 08:09:06PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Implement the support for SAW v4.1, used in at least MSM8998,
> > SDM630, SDM660 and APQ variants and, while at it, also add the
> > configuration for the SDM630/660 Silver and Gold cluster L2
> > Adaptive Voltage Scaler: this is also one of the prerequisites
> > to allow the OSM controller to perform DCVS.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c
> > index 0c8aa9240c41..843732d12c54 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c
> > @@ -32,9 +32,28 @@ enum spm_reg {
> >   	SPM_REG_SEQ_ENTRY,
> >   	SPM_REG_SPM_STS,
> >   	SPM_REG_PMIC_STS,
> > +	SPM_REG_AVS_CTL,
> > +	SPM_REG_AVS_LIMIT,
> >   	SPM_REG_NR,
> >   };
> >   
> > +static const u16 spm_reg_offset_v4_1[SPM_REG_NR] = {
> > +	[SPM_REG_AVS_CTL]	= 0x904,
> > +	[SPM_REG_AVS_LIMIT]	= 0x908,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct spm_reg_data spm_reg_660_gold_l2  = {
> > +	.reg_offset = spm_reg_offset_v4_1,
> > +	.avs_ctl = 0x1010031,
> > +	.avs_limit = 0x4580458,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct spm_reg_data spm_reg_660_silver_l2  = {
> > +	.reg_offset = spm_reg_offset_v4_1,
> > +	.avs_ctl = 0x101c031,
>
> I was just randomly looking for the same value in downstream and it
> looks like Qualcomm reverted something here to the same value as for
> the gold cluster, claiming "stability issues":
>
> https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.4/commit/?h=LA.UM.8.2.r2-04600-sdm660.0&id=5a07b7336a1b3fa6a3ac67470805259c5026206e
>
> The commit seems still present in recent qcom tags. I cannot say
> anything about this, but could you confirm if you are intentionally
> not also doing the same as qcom did in that commit?

I am intentionally not doing the same as that commit; 4 out of 6 devices
experienced random lockups with the values you mentioned (4x SDM630,
2x SDM636, of which all SDM630 and one SDM636 device are affected).

> Thanks,
> Stephan