Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] arm64/dts/qcom/sm8250: remove assigned-clock-rate property for mdp clk

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 4:16 PM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 02:56, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-03-03 15:50:50)
> > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 12:40, Vinod Polimera <quic_vpolimer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Kernel clock driver assumes that initial rate is the
> > > > max rate for that clock and was not allowing it to scale
> > > > beyond the assigned clock value.
> > > >
> > > > Drop the assigned clock rate property and vote on the mdp clock as per
> > > > calculated value during the usecase.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 7c1dffd471("arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250.dtsi: add display system nodes")
> > >
> > > Please remove the Fixes tags from all commits. Otherwise the patches
> > > might be picked up into earlier kernels, which do not have a patch
> > > adding a vote on the MDP clock.
> >
> > What patch is that? The Fixes tag could point to that commit.
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> Currently the dtsi enforces bumping the MDP clock when the mdss device
> is being probed and when the dpu device is being probed.
> Later during the DPU lifetime the core_perf would change the clock's
> rate as it sees fit according to the CRTC requirements.

"Currently" means _before_ ${SUBJECT} patch lands, right? Since
${SUBJECT} patch is removing the bump to max.


> However it would happen only when the during the
> dpu_crtc_atomic_flush(), before we call this function, the MDP clock
> is left in the undetermined state. The power rails controlled by the
> opp table are left in the undetermined state.
>
> I suppose that during the dpu_bind we should bump the clock to the max
> possible freq and let dpu_core_perf handle it afterwards.

Definitely feels like seeing the clock to something predictable during
the initial probe makes sense. If it's just for the initial probe then
setting it to max (based on the opp table) seems fine. I think an
earlier version of this series set it to max every time we did runtime
resume. We'd have to have a good reason to do that.

-Doug