Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] clk: mediatek: Add frequency hopping support
From: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
Date: Thu Jul 28 2022 - 11:48:08 EST
Il 28/07/22 17:30, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
Hi AngeloGioacchino,
Thanks for the discussion.
On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 16:21 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 28/07/22 06:37, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
Hi AngeloGioacchino,
Thanks for the advices.
On Thu, 2022-07-21 at 17:43 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 20/07/22 15:51, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
Hi AngeloGioacchino,
Thanks for all the advices and examples.
On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 19:04 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 06/07/22 15:07, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 16:54 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:09 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Il 24/06/22 09:12, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
Hi AngeloGioacchino,
Thanks for all the advices.
On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 17:43 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 12/06/22 15:54, Johnson Wang ha scritto:
Add frequency hopping support and spread spectrum clocking
control for MT8186.
Signed-off-by: Edward-JW Yang <edward-jw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Johnson Wang <johnson.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Before going on with the review, there's one important consideration:
the Frequency Hopping control is related to PLLs only (so, no other clock
types get in the mix).
Checking the code, the *main* thing that we do here is initializing the
FHCTL by setting some registers, and we're performing the actual frequency
hopping operation in clk-pll, which is right but, at this point, I think
that the best way to proceed is to add the "FHCTL superpowers" to clk-pll
itself, instead of adding multiple new files and devicetree bindings that
are specific to the FHCTL itself.
This would mean that the `fh-id` and `perms` params that you're setting in
the devicetree get transferred to clk-mt8186 (and hardcoded there), as to
extend the PLL declarations to include these two: that will also simplify
the driver so that you won't have to match names here and there.
Just an example:
PLL(CLK_APMIXED_CCIPLL, "ccipll", 0x0224, 0x0230, 0,
PLL_AO, 0, 22, 0x0228, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0x0228, 2, FHCTL_PERM_DBG_DUMP),
Besides, there are another couple of reasons why you should do that instead,
of which:
- The devicetree should be "generic enough", we shall not see the direct value
to write to the registers in there (yet, perms assigns exactly that)
- These values won't change on a per-device basis, I believe? They're SoC-related,
not board-related, right?
In case they're board related (and/or related to TZ permissions), we can always add
a bool property to the apmixedsys to advertise that board X needs to use an
alternative permission (ex.: `mediatek,secure-fhctl`).
I think we should remain clk-fhctl files because FHCTL is a independent HW and is
not a necessary component of clk-pll.
I know what FHCTL is, but thank you anyway for the explanation, that's appreciated.
In any case, this not being a *mandatory* component doesn't mean that when it is
enabled it's not changing the way we manage the PLLs..........
Frequency hopping function from FHCTL is not used to replace original flow of
set_rate in clk-pll. They are two different ways to change PLL's frequency. The
I disagree: when we want to use FHCTL, we effectively hand-over PLL control from
APMIXEDSYS to the Frequency Hopping controller - and we're effectively replacing
the set_rate() logic of clk-pll.
Do you mean we need to drop the current set_rate() logic (direct register write) and
use Frequency Hopping Controller instead?
On PLLs that are supported by the Frequency Hopping controller, yes: we should
simply use a different .set_rate() callback in clk-pll.c, and we should return
a failure if the FHCTL fails to set the rate - so we should *not* fall back to
direct register writes, as on some platforms and in some conditions, using
direct register writes (which means that we skip FHCTL), may lead to unstable
system.
This means that we need logic such that, in mtk_clk_register_pll(), we end up
having something like that:
if (fhctl_is_enabled(pll))
init.ops = &mtk_pll_fhctl_ops;
else
init.ops = &mtk_pll_ops;
I need to mention that not all PLL support FHCTL, only those PLLs with FHCTL HW can
choose to use FHCTL. Take 8186 for example, there are three PLLs don't support FHCTL
HW.
Where we declare the PLLs, for example, in clk-mt8186-apmixedsys.c, we can declare
that such PLL can be managed by FHCTL, for example:
PLL(CLK_APMIXED_ARMPLL_LL, "armpll_ll", 0x0204, 0x0210, 0,
PLL_AO, 0, 22, 0x0208, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0x0208),
becomes
PLL(CLK_APMIXED_ARMPLL_LL, "armpll_ll", 0x0204, 0x0210, 0,
PLL_AO, 0, 22, 0x0208, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0x0208, true);
where 'true' means "FHCTL is supported".
Does it still have an independent FHCTL driver after modifying to this? From your example,
setup a clk_ops and add FHCTL properities into PLL(), seems FHCTL driver is merged into
clk-pll and become part of clk-pll driver.
The direct-MMIO part of FHCTL becomes part of the clk-pll driver, yes - but then
I also find it unacceptable to embed the IPI communication inside of there, so we
can have an "external" helper for that.
I think clk-pll driver should focus on PLL HW itself. Since PLL can work alone without
FHCTL, adding FHCTL control into clk-pll may be a little strange. For this PLL+FHCTL
combination, I want to add a new type of clock driver, like clk-pll-fh. It might be a
easier way to maintain FHCTL HW related changes and won't affect to clk-pll.
That makes sense, and it's doable as long as we're not duplicating clk-pll's code
to clk-pll-fh and also as long as we're hardcoding the availability of FHCTL in the
SoC-specific clock drivers like I explained in the PLL macro from the previous
example. Let's go!
We tend to have an indepentent driver and dts for FHCTL, and mutate only .set_rate()
callback function instead of whole clk_ops. The boot-up sequence is like:
1. clk-pll + clk dts
probe -> clk-pll original flow, nothing to change
/* clk-pll provide multation API for set_rate */
/* mutate necessary set_rate() instead of mutating all ops */
def register_fhctl_set_rate(pll_name, callback)
ops = find_pll_ops_by_name(pll_name)
log("change set_rate to fhctl callback for $pll_name")
ops->set_rate = callback
2. FHCTL driver + fhctl dts
probe
options = parsing dts (board specific, hopping disalbe or ssc-rate)
init FHCTL HW
for PLL in dts
if (ssc-rate > 0)
enable_ssc(ssc-rate)
if (hop-enabled)
/* mutate CCF set_rate, FHCTL engaged CCF */
register_fhctl_CCF(pll_name, callback)
I really don't like having PLL names in devicetree: they're already defined in
clock drivers and they will change on a per-SoC basis - and we do have per-SoC
drivers...
Whatever goes to devicetree should be something that we need to vary on a
per-board/platform(project) basis, so, enablement of FHCTL per-pll (by using
handles and numeral bindings as per the example that I previously wrote),
enablement of spread spectrum and its rate... and nothing else.
OK, we will remove PLL names in devicetree.
Great.
Then, we register the PLLs with something like:
mtk_clk_register_plls(node, plls, num_plls, clk_data, fhctl_register_version);
...where fhctl_register_version is used to assign the right fhctl register offsets.
Also, it's not needed to assign all of the register offsets statically, because
they can be easily calculated based on the number of supported PLLs, since the
registers are structured like
[FHCTL GLOBAL REGISTERS] <--- hp_en...slope1
[FHCTL SSC GLOBAL REGISTERS] <--- DSSC_CFG, DSSC0...x_CON
[FHCTL PER-PLL REGISTERS] <--- CFG...MON
^^^ where this is repeated X times for X PLLs.
so, keeping the example of MT8186, we can get the per-pll register like:
#define FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET 0x3c
#define FHCTL_PLL_LEN 0x14
#define FHCTLx_CFG(pll_id) (FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET + (pll_id * FHCTL_PLL_LEN))
#define FHCTLx_UPDNLMT(pll_id) (FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET + (pll_id * FHCTL_PLL_LEN) + 0x4)
#define FHCTLx_DDS(pll_id) (FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET + (pll_id * FHCTL_PLL_LEN) + 0x8)
we don't need to put all of them in a structure and for each PLL.
We use structure instead of using macros is because the register offset may have
difference between ICs. If we use macro, we need to maintain different versions of macros.
Using structure to store these register offsets is more flexible.
I understand. What I don't like about your specific approach is the amount of
register offsets that we store in that structure, looks like it's a bit too many.
I've seen that there's a common pattern at least by checking downstream 5.10 and
MT8186/95 layouts, so I still think that using these macros will be beneficial.
We can always add parameters to the structure in a later commit: in my opinion,
that will help to engineer a better, shorter, cleaner solution for calculating
these registers anyway... but I will leave this choice to you, anyway, since you
know about way more SoCs than I do.
OK, we will reduce the structure.
Perfect!
So, we need both APMIXEDSYS and Frequency Hopping Controller in set_rate() logic to
handle this two types of PLL.
As already said, we preventively know which PLLs support FHCTL and which does not,
so we can use a different .set_rate() callback.
Ok, we can use a different .set_rate() callback when fhctl driver probing.
current set_rate method in clk-pll changes PLL register setting directly. Another
way uses FHCTL to change PLL rate.
...and of course, if we change that, we're effectively mutating the functionality
of the MediaTek clk-pll driver and please understand that seeing a clear mutation
in that driver is a bit more human-readable.
Besides, this makes me think about one question: is there any instance in which,
when FHCTL rate setting fails, we fall back to direct register writes?
I don't think that this is feasible because we have a register in FHCTL that
effectively hands over control to it, so direct register writes should not work
when the PLL is not under APMIXEDSYS control, but I'm asking just to be extremely
sure that my understanding is right.
It won't fall back to direct register writes when FHCTL rate setting fails. But, PLL
control mode will switch back to APMIXEDSYS after frequency hopping completed.
There are two cases that we need to fall back to direct register writes:
1. PLL support FHCTL but it doesn't want to use FHCTL.
2. PLL doesn't support FHCTL HW.
For case N.1, if this is board-specific, we have to resort to devicetree properties
that will enable/disable FHCTL on specific PLLs.
mediatek,fhctl-disable = <CLK_APMIXED_MSDCPLL>, <CLK_APMIXED_NNAPLL>;
mediatek,ssc-enable = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL>;
These are just examples - I don't currently know if it's a better idea to have an
allowlist or a blocklist as devicetree properties, as that depends on the expected
number of PLLs for which we en/dis fhctl or just ssc (if we generally want fhctl
enabled on all but one PLLs, we should use fhctl-disable, otherwise, fhctl-enable).
We also have a properity "ssc-rate" for setting up the ssc rate in percentage. The "ssc-
rate" properity is under fhctl dts node and can be setup on each fhctl-PLL.
Right. For that, we could have a default sensible percentage when SSC is enabled
but no rate is set in devicetree, or we can perhaps consider SSC enabled when any
meaningful SSC rate is set... For example:
mediatek,ssc-enable = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL>;
mediatek,ssc-percent = <5>, <5>;
... or something like:
mediatek,ssc = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL 5>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL 5>;
...but I'd like to have some feedback on that from somebody else, as I don't know
if that would be acceptable in devicetree, or if there's any cleaner, niftier
solution.
OK, we will use this:
mediatek,hopping-ssc-percent = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL 5>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL 5>;
Looks good.
We will set some PLL's frequency be controlled
by clk-pll and some are controlled by FHCTL.
Another question: is this also changing on a per-board basis?
(note: the pll names in the example are random and not specific to anything)
Example: board A wants FHCTL on MMPLL, TVDPLL, MPLL, but *shall not* hand over
NNAPLL, MFGPLL
board B wants FHCTL on NNAPLL, TVDPLL but *shall not* hand over MMPLL
Granted that the two A, B boards are using the same SoC, can that ever happen?
This could happen if A, B boards have different desense issue.
Ok, so it's definitely board specific. Devicetree is the way to go for this.
And use `perms` param to decide
whether a PLL is using FHCTL to change its frequency.
The perms param seems to be about:
* Enabling debug (but you're not providing any way to actually use debugging
features, so what's the point?)
Debugging feature is not used yet, we can removed it.
If the debugging features of the FHCTL driver will be like what I can see on
the downstream MT6893 5.10 kernel, that's not really applicable to upstream.
In that case, please remove the debug.
Ok, we will remove it.
* Handing over PLL control to FHCTL for hopping (can be as well done with
simply using a different .set_rate() callback instead of a flag)
There has some PLL that have FHCTL but don't want to use FHCTL. The flag is used in
this case.
Use the flag to set the right .set_rate() callback, set at probe time, instead of
checking that flag at every set_rate() call.
We will setup .set_rate() callback when doing fhctl-pll init.
* Enabling/disabling Spread Spectrum Clocking (and I think that this is a
legit use for flags, but if it's just one flag, you can as well use a
bool and manage this with a devicetree param like "enable-ssc")
That said, I think that the current way of enabling the FHCTL is more complicated
than how it should really be.
Here needs an option to decide whether to enable FHCTL-hopping or FHCTL-ssc since
these two are per-board basis.
We cannot force all PLL hand over to FHCTL for hopping casue not all PLLs support
FHCTL and not all PLLs have need of using FHCTL-hopping.
Board specific -> devicetree
SoC specific -> hardcode, no devicetree.
FHCTL has another function called SSC(spread spectrum clocking) which is used to
solve PLL de-sense problem. De-sense problem is board-related so we introduce a
`ssc-rate` param in the devicetree to decide whether SSC is enabled and how many
rate should be set. Mixing SSC function into clk-pll may cause clk-pll more
complex.
Thing is, I don't get why you think that adding SSC to clk-pll would complicate it
so much... it's really just a few register writes and nothing else, so I really
don't see where the problem is, here.
Another issue is that this driver may be largely incomplete, so perhaps I can't
really see the complications you're talking about? Is this the case?
Regarding keeping the FHCTL code in separated files, that's fine, but I would still
integrate it tightly in clk-pll and its registration flow, because - yes, this is
for sure not mandatory, but the main parameters are constant, they never change for
a specific PLL, as they're register offsets, bits and masks (which, again, will
never change as long as we're using the same SoC).
The driver may need to supoport microP by future HW design, standalone file clk-
fhctl.c helps to trigger init flow of such as ap-init-flow, microP-init-flow .....,
and those different init-flow also need to run some communication API with microP.
Those communication APIs are not suitable to merge into clk-pll.
Let's use clk-fhctl as an helper then, we can make sure to call the init flow for
the microP in the SoC-specific clock drivers, I think that's not a problem?
clk_mtfuturesoc_someip_probe()
{
.... register clocks ....
freqhopping_microp_init();
return ret;
}
If there's hardware out there that supports such feature and a downstream kernel to
look at, please tell me which one, so that I will be able to check it out and
perhaps understand how this flow works.
P.S.: I guess it's not fhctl-sspm?
You could find clk-fhctl-mcupm.c and clk-fhctl-gpueb.c on the downstream MT6893 5.10
kernel. Those codes require the PLL hardware specification to determine which PLL
group(eg. PLL TOP group, GPUEB group) runs on which microP and has responsibilty to
communicate with the microP.
If we implement these things into clk-pll driver, clk-pll driver not only needs to control
PLL frequency but also needs to deal with microP IPI. It makes clk-pll driver have others
works that is not belong to PLL operation. That's why we tend to have a standalone driver
for FHCTL.
Ok having something to analyze made this entire thing a bit more clear in my mind,
thanks for the pointers.
Analyzing clk-fhctl-mcupm and clk-fhctl-gpueb makes me see that there's a lot of
common code between the two: x_hopping_v1(), x_ssc_enable_v1(), x_ssc_disable_v1()
(where x = {gpueb,mcupm}) are really the same functions, duplicated and renamed
and nothing else.
The only difference is the get_xxxx_ipidev(), which is avoidable by assigning
mboxes = <...something...> in devicetree (gpueb mailbox, or mcupm mailbox).
Even the `FH_DEVCTL_CMD_ID` enumeration uses the same values!
To unroll that riddle, I would at that point add a new MediaTek specific clock
driver (like clk-pll) and call it `clk-ipi.c`, because that's what it does in
the end: whatever we do, goes through a mailbox instead of a direct MMIO write.
That clk-fhctl-ipi would contain a probe function that gets the mailbox handle,
then we would add something like `clk_fhctl_set_rate()` function, export it in
the `clk-mtk.h` or in a new `clk-fhctl.h` header, then assign the right callback
in either the SoC's clock driver (by registering a different clock type, which,
in this case, would be clk-fhctl-ipi instead of clk-pll), or in clk-pll itself...
In the end, I'm effectively proposing to:
1. Merge the direct-MMIO handling of FHCTL in clk-pll;
2. Create a new driver (and clock type, eventually) for the IPI handling of FHCTL.
From your idea, I think we can also create a new clock type for fhctl such as clk-pll-fh
and add a new PLL register function for PLL+FHCTL. Then we can change the registery
interface and won't affect the legacy ICs. Also, if FHCTL has changes, we only need to
modify clk-pll-fh.
I think using a new clock type has extendibility for FHCTL changes and also compatiable
with legacy ICs.
clk-pll.h
/* Define FHCTL data structure and contains mtk_pll_data.
* We can use mtk_pll_data later. */
mtk_pll_fh_data {
struct mtk_pll_data pll_data;
/* fhctl_data */
unsigned int fh_id;
unsigned int ssc_rate;
...
}
clk-mt8186-apmixedsys.c
func clk_mt8186_apmixed_probe()
/* There are two implementations.
* If ICs need FHCTL such as MT8186, use mtk_clk_register_pllfhs()
* For those legacy ICs which don't need FHCTL, still use
* mtk_clk_register_plls().
*/
/* 1. Need FHCTL. Use API from clk-pll-fh.c */
fhctl_parse_dt()
mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls data, fh-plls data)
/* 2. Legacy ICs. Use API from clk-pll.c */
mtk_clk_register_plls()
I'm not sure if we're saying the very same thing here, but for the sake of being
clear and avoiding any misunderstanding, here's my description.
We should call both functions: register_pllfhs() for the PLLs that have support for
freqhopping, register_plls() for the ones that *do not support* freqhopping.
Example for PLL_A, PLL_B, PLL_C, PLL_D:
Freqhopping supported (enabled or not): PLL_A, PLL_B
Freqhopping NOT supported at all: PLL_C, PLL_D
fhplls_data[] = { PLL_A, PLL_B };
plls_data[] = { PLL_C, PLL_D };
func mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(fhdata)
walk through fhplls_data only, other plls are not passed to this function
func clk_mt8186_apmixed_probe()
/* Some PLLs must be controlled directly via MMIO, while others
* support Frequency Hopping through FHCTL.
* Where FHCTL is supported, register clock with register_pllfhs.
* PLLs that are not supported by FHCTL: register with register_plls.
*/
/* Register FHCTL PLLs */
fhctl_parse_dt()
mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(array of plls supporting pllfh)
/* Register the PLLs that do not support FHCTL at all */
mtk_clk_register_plls(all the other PLLs that cannot be FHCTL-controlled)
I have a different opinion here. I think we should just choose one register function when
probe and it depends on platform implementation instead of a PLL is supported FHCTL or
not. We have an option to use clk-pll-fh or clk-pll at the beginning of new IC
development. And, we want it's easy to add FHCTL support on legecy ICs.
The way of how we use the register function is affected by the way we use fhplls_data. If
FHCTL supported or not is used to decide which registery function should we use, it has to
change the exist plls_data. But most of IC's PLL data is already exist. So I want to use a
structure to descript FHCTL HW itself and have a link to existed PLL data.
From your example, it will look like:
plls_data = { PLL_A, PLL_B, PLL_C, PLL_D }; /* Already existed */
fhplls_data = { FH_A,
FH_B }; /* New added for FHCTL data */
func mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls_data, fhplls_data)
fhctl_match_pll_data()
/* Link fhpll and pll:
* FH_A -> PLL_A
* FH_B -> PLL_B
*/
For MT8186 and ICs need FHCTL supported:
func clk_mt8186_apmixed_probe()
fhctl_parse_dt()
mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls_data, fhplls_data)
For those don't need FHCTL and legacy ICs:
func clk_mtxxxx_apmixed_probe()
mtk_clk_register_plls(plls_data)
When one ICs that need to support FHCTL but they didn't implement before, we only need to
change the registery function and add FHCTL data, no need to modify existed plls_data. I
think it can save our development time and maintenance effort.
I see what you mean now. Okay, that seems sensible.
clk-pll.c
/* No functional changes, so legacy ICs won't be affected.
* Export clk_ops functions to clk-pll-fh.c
*/
func mtk_clk_register_plls()
init.ops = &mtk_pll_ops;
clk-pll-fh.c
/* A clock type of FHCTL PLL. Used to setup HW data and ops.
* Most of ops functions inherit from clk-pll.c.
* If PLL not support or not enable FHCTL, fallback to use &mtk_pll_ops.
*/
func mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls data, fh-plls data)
fhctl_match_pll_data() /* match mtk_pll_data and mtk_pll_fh_data */
fhctl_hw_init()
if (fhctl_is_supported_and_enabled(pll))
Overall, this seems to look good, minor one nit: if FHCTL is *not supported* on
a PLL, we should *not* even call mtk_clk_register_pllfhs on that PLL, so your
pseudocode would be just:
if (fhctl_is_enabled(pll))
The requirements of clk-pll-fh are:
1. It is compatible with those PLLs that don't support FHCTL HW.
2. It can handle PLLs that supported FHCTL but aren't enabled.
3. It can handle PLLs that supported FHCTL but are enabled.
So, I use fhctl_is_supported_and_enabled(PLL) here. No matter a PLL supports FHCTL or not,
it can work.
Alright, let's go with that!
init.ops = &mtk_pll_fhctl_ops;
else
init.ops = &mtk_pll_ops;
if (ssc_is_enable(pll))
fhctl_ssc_enable(pll)
clk-fhctl.c
/* APIs of FHCTL HW operations */
func fhctl_hw_init()
func fhctl_hopping()
func fhctl_ssc_enable()
So it seems that we've reached an agreement here, this was a nice planning
discussion; we should now have a nice and solid base to work on, which is
great.
Cheers,
Angelo