[v4,0/3] qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add CPU clock provider support

Message

Manivannan Sadhasivam Nov. 2, 2022, 9:08 a.m. UTC

Hello,

This series adds clock provider support to the Qcom CPUFreq driver for
supplying the clocks to the CPU cores in Qcom SoCs.

The Qualcomm platforms making use of CPUFreq HW Engine (EPSS/OSM) supply
clocks to the CPU cores. But this is not represented clearly in devicetree.
There is no clock coming out of the CPUFreq HW node to the CPU. This created
an issue [1] with the OPP core when a recent enhancement series was submitted.
Eventhough the issue got fixed in the OPP framework in the meantime, that's
not a proper solution and this series aims to fix it properly.

There was also an attempt made by Viresh [2] to fix the issue by moving the
clocks supplied to the CPUFreq HW node to the CPU. But that was not accepted
since those clocks belong to the CPUFreq HW node only.

The proposal here is to add clock provider support to the Qcom CPUFreq HW
driver to supply clocks to the CPUs that comes out of the EPSS/OSM block.
This correctly reflects the hardware implementation.

The clock provider is a simple one that just provides the frequency of the
clocks supplied to each frequency domain in the SoC using .recalc_rate()
callback. The frequency supplied by the driver will be the actual frequency
that comes out of the EPSS/OSM block after the DCVS operation. This frequency
is not same as what the CPUFreq framework has set but it is the one that gets
supplied to the CPUs after throttling by LMh.

This series has been tested on SM8450 based dev board with the OPP hack removed
and hence there is a DTS change only for that platform. Once this series gets
accepted, rest of the platform DTS can also be modified and finally the hack on
the OPP core can be dropped.

Thanks,
Mani

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[e-mail]/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220801054255.GA12039@thinkpad/t/

Changes in v4:

* Rebased on top of cpufreq/arm/linux-next branch

Changes in v3:

* Submitted the cpufreq driver cleanup patches as a separate series as
  suggested by Viresh
* Removed static keyword from clk_init_data declaration

Changes in v2:

* Moved the qcom_cpufreq_data allocation to probe
* Added single clock provider with multiple clks for each freq domain
* Moved soc_data to qcom_cpufreq struct
* Added Rob's review for binding

Manivannan Sadhasivam (3):
  dt-bindings: cpufreq: cpufreq-qcom-hw: Add cpufreq clock provider
  arm64: dts: qcom: sm8450: Supply clock from cpufreq node to CPUs
  cpufreq: qcom-hw: Add CPU clock provider support

 .../bindings/cpufreq/cpufreq-qcom-hw.yaml     | 12 ++++++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8450.dtsi          |  9 ++++
 drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c             | 43 +++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 64 insertions(+)

Comments

Viresh Kumar Nov. 7, 2022, 10:10 a.m. UTC | #1

On 02-11-22, 14:38, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This series adds clock provider support to the Qcom CPUFreq driver for
> supplying the clocks to the CPU cores in Qcom SoCs.
> 
> The Qualcomm platforms making use of CPUFreq HW Engine (EPSS/OSM) supply
> clocks to the CPU cores. But this is not represented clearly in devicetree.
> There is no clock coming out of the CPUFreq HW node to the CPU. This created
> an issue [1] with the OPP core when a recent enhancement series was submitted.
> Eventhough the issue got fixed in the OPP framework in the meantime, that's
> not a proper solution and this series aims to fix it properly.
> 
> There was also an attempt made by Viresh [2] to fix the issue by moving the
> clocks supplied to the CPUFreq HW node to the CPU. But that was not accepted
> since those clocks belong to the CPUFreq HW node only.
> 
> The proposal here is to add clock provider support to the Qcom CPUFreq HW
> driver to supply clocks to the CPUs that comes out of the EPSS/OSM block.
> This correctly reflects the hardware implementation.
> 
> The clock provider is a simple one that just provides the frequency of the
> clocks supplied to each frequency domain in the SoC using .recalc_rate()
> callback. The frequency supplied by the driver will be the actual frequency
> that comes out of the EPSS/OSM block after the DCVS operation. This frequency
> is not same as what the CPUFreq framework has set but it is the one that gets
> supplied to the CPUs after throttling by LMh.
> 
> This series has been tested on SM8450 based dev board with the OPP hack removed
> and hence there is a DTS change only for that platform. Once this series gets
> accepted, rest of the platform DTS can also be modified and finally the hack on
> the OPP core can be dropped.

Would be better to get an Ack from Bjorn before I apply these.

Sudeep Holla Nov. 8, 2022, 3:45 p.m. UTC | #2

On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 02:38:15PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This series adds clock provider support to the Qcom CPUFreq driver for
> supplying the clocks to the CPU cores in Qcom SoCs.
> 
> The Qualcomm platforms making use of CPUFreq HW Engine (EPSS/OSM) supply
> clocks to the CPU cores. But this is not represented clearly in devicetree.
> There is no clock coming out of the CPUFreq HW node to the CPU. This created
> an issue [1] with the OPP core when a recent enhancement series was submitted.
> Eventhough the issue got fixed in the OPP framework in the meantime, that's
> not a proper solution and this series aims to fix it properly.
> 
> There was also an attempt made by Viresh [2] to fix the issue by moving the
> clocks supplied to the CPUFreq HW node to the CPU. But that was not accepted
> since those clocks belong to the CPUFreq HW node only.
> 
> The proposal here is to add clock provider support to the Qcom CPUFreq HW
> driver to supply clocks to the CPUs that comes out of the EPSS/OSM block.
> This correctly reflects the hardware implementation.
>

Just curious as who will be the consumer of this CPU clock information ?
Traditionally it was cpufreq that needed this information. But now with
this series, it is bit convoluted IMO as the clocks is depending on the
CPUFreq information indirectly and not used by cpufreq.

Whoever is the consumer of this clock, why can't they use cpufreq information ?

I did a quick check and couldn't find the info I am requesting here, sorry if
it is already answered/discussed. Please just point me the url.