Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: mediatek: mt8195-topckgen: Refactor parents for top_dp/edp muxes

[Maxime Ripard]

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:29:41PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 18/07/23 11:03, Maxime Ripard ha scritto:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 04:30:48PM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > > > AFAIK the recommended way to deal with this is to use
> > > > > > > clk_set_rate_exclusive() and co. in whatever consumer driver that
> > > > > > > needs exclusive control on the clock rate.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I guess it works, but it looks to me like the issue here is that the
> > > > > > provider should disable it entirely? My expectation for
> > > > > > clk_set_rate_exclusive() is that one user needs to lock the clock rate
> > > > > > to operate properly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If the provider expectation is that the rate or parent should never
> > > > > > changed, then that needs to be dealt with at the provider level, ie
> > > > > > through the clk_ops.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > However I'm not sure if that works for parents. It should, given the
> > > > > > > original use case was for the sunxi platforms, which like the MediaTek
> > > > > > > platform here has 2 PLLs for video related consumers, but I couldn't
> > > > > > > find code verifying it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > If you want to prevent clocks from ever being reparented, you can use
> > > > > > the new clk_hw_determine_rate_no_reparent() determine_rate
> > > > > > implementation.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We want the clocks to be reparented, as we need them to switch parents as
> > > > > explained before... that's more or less how the tree looks:
> > > > > 
> > > > > TVDPLL(x) -> PLL Divider (fixed) -> MUX -> Gate -> Controller
> > > > > 
> > > > > Besides, I think that forcing *one* parent to the dp/edp mux would produce a
> > > > > loss of the flexibility that the clock framework provides.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I again want to emphasize on the fact that TVDPLL1 and TVDPLL2 are *identical*
> > > > > in specs, and on that there will never be a MT8195 SoC that has only one of
> > > > > the two PLLs, for obvious reasons...
> > > > > 
> > > > > P.S.: If you need more context, I'll be glad to answer to any other question!
> > > > 
> > > > Then I have no idea what the question is :)
> > > > 
> > > > What are you trying to achieve / fix, and how can I help you ? :)
> > > 
> > > Chen-Yu, Alexandre had/have questions about if there was any other solution instead
> > > of using the solution of *this* commit, so, if there's any other better solution
> > > than the one that I've sent as this commit.
> > > 
> > > I'm the one saying that this commit is the best solution :-P
> > 
> > I went back to the original patch, and my understanding is that, when
> > running two output in parallel, the modeset of one can affect the second
> > one, and that's bad, right?
> > 
> > If so, then you usually have multiple ways to fix this:
> > 
> >   - This patch
> >   - Using clk_set_rate_exclusive like Chen-Yu suggested
> >   - Using a notifier to react to a rate change and adjust
> > 
> > I'm not aware of any "official" guidelines at the clock framework level
> > regarding which to pick and all are fine.
> > 
> > My opinion though would be to use clk_set_rate_exclusive(), for multiple
> > reasons.
> > 
> > The first one is that it models correctly what you consumer expects:
> > that the rate is left untouched. This can happen in virtually any
> > situation where you have one clock in the same subtree changing rate,
> > while the patch above will only fix that particular interference.
> > 
> > The second one is that, especially with DP, you only have a handful of
> > rates you'll need to reach. 148MHz, 297MHz, 594MHz, and possibly a bunch
> > of others for eDP panels. It's thus likely to have both controllers
> > having the same frequency requirement, and thus it makes it possible to
> > run from only one PLL and shut the other down.
> > 
> > This patch will introduce orphan clocks issues that are always a bit
> > bothersome. A notifier would be troublesome to use and will probably
> > introduce glitches plus some weird interaction with scrambling if you
> > ever support it.
> > 
> > So, yeah, using clk_set_rate_exclusive() seems like the best option to me :)
> > 
> > Maxime
> 
> Sorry for resurrecting a very old thread, I was able to come back to this issue
> right now: there's an issue that I can't really think about how to solve with
> just the usage of clk_set_rate_exclusive().
> 
> Remembering that the clock tree is as following:
> TVDPLL(x) -> PLL Divider (fixed) ->
> -> MUX (can choose any of TVDPLL(1/2)_d(2/4/6/8/16)) -> Gate -> Controller
> 
> The DPI driver is doing:
> 1. Check the best factor for setting rate of a TVDPLL
> 2. Set rate of one TVDPLL (specified in DT): clk_set_rate(dpi->tvd_clk, rate);
>    2a. Read the rate of that PLL again to know the precise clock output
> 3. Set rate on the Gate clock (forwards to MUX, selecting TVDPLL(x)_d(y)):
>    clk_set_rate(dpi->pixel_clk, rate);
> 
> 
> Now, the issue is: if I change the final pixel_clk rate setting to _exclusive(),
> nothing still guarantees that we will be selecting the TVDPLL that we have
> manipulated in step 2, look at the following example.
> 
> tvd_clk == TVDPLL1
> pixel_clk == TOP_DP (can be muxed to any tvdpll1/2 dividers!)
> 
> clk_set_rate(tvdpll1, something); new_rate = clk_get_rate(tvdpll1)
> 
> ...calculations... new_rate = pixclk * factor;
> ...more calculations....
> 
> clk_set_rate(pixel_clk, calculated_something)
>        ^^^^^^
> 
> There is still no guarantee that pixel_clk is getting parented to one of the
> TVDPLL1 dividers, as it could still get parented to a TVDPLL2 divider instead
> if the other controller has set TVDPLL2 to "an acceptable rate": it's true that
> this would work - yes but suboptimally! - because we want to set a specific
> factor to reduce jitter on the final pixel clock.

If your clock ends up with a suboptimal set of parameters, you have a
problem with determine_rate.

> ....And I came back to this commit being again the best solution for me because....
> 
> 1. You also seem to agree with me that a notifier would be troublesome and would
>    probably introduce glitches; and
> 2. clk_set_rate_exclusive() doesn't give me any guarantee about selecting the same
>    PLL that the driver was manipulating before.
> 
> 
> Am I underestimating and/or ignoring anything else in all of that?

I guess I'm still confused about why you want to allow reparenting in
the first place, but still don't want to reparent to the other PLL?

Anyway, it's not a big deal. Whatever works for you I guess :)

Maxime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature