Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: cpufreq: add virtual cpufreq device

From: Sudeep Holla
Date: Fri Dec 08 2023 - 07:47:15 EST


On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 05:49:29PM -0800, David Dai wrote:
> Adding bindings to represent a virtual cpufreq device.
>
> Virtual machines may expose MMIO regions for a virtual cpufreq device
> for guests to read frequency information or to request frequency
> selection. The virtual cpufreq device has an individual controller for
> each frequency domain.
>
> Co-developed-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: David Dai <davidai@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../cpufreq/qemu,cpufreq-virtual.yaml | 99 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/qemu,cpufreq-virtual.yaml
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/qemu,cpufreq-virtual.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/qemu,cpufreq-virtual.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..16606cf1fd1a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/qemu,cpufreq-virtual.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/cpufreq/qemu,cpufreq-virtual.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Virtual CPUFreq
> +
> +maintainers:
> + - David Dai <davidai@xxxxxxxxxx>
> + - Saravana Kannan <saravanak@xxxxxxxxxx>
> +
> +description:
> + Virtual CPUFreq is a virtualized driver in guest kernels that sends frequency
> + selection of its vCPUs as a hint to the host through MMIO regions. Each vCPU
> + is associated with a frequency domain which can be shared with other vCPUs.
> + Each frequency domain has its own set of registers for frequency controls.
> +

Are these register controls described somewhere ? The reason I ask is we
should be able to have single implementation of this virtual cpufreq
irrespective of the firmware used(DT vs ACPI) IMO.

> +properties:
> + compatible:
> + const: qemu,virtual-cpufreq
> +
> + reg:
> + maxItems: 1
> + description:
> + Address and size of region containing frequency controls for each of the
> + frequency domains. Regions for each frequency domain is placed
> + contiugously and contain registers for controlling DVFS(Dynamic Frequency
> + and Voltage) characteristics. The size of the region is proportional to
> + total number of frequency domains.
> +
> +required:
> + - compatible
> + - reg
> +
> +additionalProperties: false
> +
> +examples:
> + - |
> + // This example shows a two CPU configuration with a frequency domain
> + // for each CPU.
> + cpus {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + cpu@0 {
> + compatible = "arm,armv8";
> + device_type = "cpu";
> + reg = <0x0>;
> + operating-points-v2 = <&opp_table0>;
> + };
> +
> + cpu@1 {
> + compatible = "arm,armv8";
> + device_type = "cpu";
> + reg = <0x0>;
> + operating-points-v2 = <&opp_table1>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + opp_table0: opp-table-0 {
> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> + opp-shared;
> +
> + opp1098000000 {
> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1098000000>;
> + opp-level = <1>;
> + };
> +
> + opp1197000000 {
> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1197000000>;
> + opp-level = <2>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + opp_table1: opp-table-1 {
> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
> + opp-shared;
> +
> + opp1106000000 {
> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1106000000>;
> + opp-level = <1>;
> + };
> +
> + opp1277000000 {
> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1277000000>;
> + opp-level = <2>;
> + };
> + };
>

I think using OPP with absolute frequencies seems not appropriate here.
Why can't these fetched from the registers and have some abstract values
instead ?

> + soc {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> + cpufreq@1040000 {
> + compatible = "qemu,virtual-cpufreq";
> + reg = <0x1040000 0x10>;

So just 16bytes for 2 CPU system ? How does the register layout look like ?
I assume just 4 x 32bit registers: 2 for reading and 2 for setting the
frequencies ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep