| Message ID | 20241203173908.3148794-3-etienne.carriere@foss.st.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | firmware: arm_scmi: unbound discrete rates, support round rate | expand |
On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > index 09ccd6cea7f2..7bbb2ee55f4f 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > @@ -61,13 +61,20 @@ static long scmi_clk_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); > > /* > - * We can't figure out what rate it will be, so just return the > + * In case we can't figure out what rate it will be when the clock > + * describes a list of discrete rates, then just return the > * rate back to the caller. scmi_clk_recalc_rate() will be called > * after the rate is set and we'll know what rate the clock is > * running at then. > */ > - if (clk->info->rate_discrete) > + if (clk->info->rate_discrete) { > + ftmp = rate; No need for this assignment. > + if (scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate && > + !scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate(clk->ph, clk->id, &ftmp)) > + return ftmp; > + > return rate; > + } > > fmin = clk->info->range.min_rate; > fmax = clk->info->range.max_rate; regards, dan carpenter
Hello Dan, Thanks for looking at this change. On Friday, December 6, 2024, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > index 09ccd6cea7f2..7bbb2ee55f4f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > @@ -61,13 +61,20 @@ static long scmi_clk_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > > struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); > > > > /* > > - * We can't figure out what rate it will be, so just return the > > + * In case we can't figure out what rate it will be when the clock > > + * describes a list of discrete rates, then just return the > > * rate back to the caller. scmi_clk_recalc_rate() will be called > > * after the rate is set and we'll know what rate the clock is > > * running at then. > > */ > > - if (clk->info->rate_discrete) > > + if (clk->info->rate_discrete) { > > + ftmp = rate; > > No need for this assignment. It is needed. The round_rate handler in scmi clock protocol driver I added in drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c expects the argument to carry the target rate as input value and provide the closest reachable rate as output value, hence initializing @ftmp above. I needed to preserve the value @rate since used if this round_rate handle is not available or returns with an error. Note that I could have changed scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate() function ABI to split input target rate and output rounded rate into 2 separated explicit arguments. Regards, Etienne > > > + if (scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate && > > + !scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate(clk->ph, clk->id, &ftmp)) > > + return ftmp; > > + > > return rate; > > + } > > > > fmin = clk->info->range.min_rate; > > fmax = clk->info->range.max_rate; > > regards, > dan carpenter >
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 08:16:24AM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE - foss wrote: > Hello Dan, > > Thanks for looking at this change. > > On Friday, December 6, 2024, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > > index 09ccd6cea7f2..7bbb2ee55f4f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c > > > @@ -61,13 +61,20 @@ static long scmi_clk_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, > > > struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); > > > > > > /* > > > - * We can't figure out what rate it will be, so just return the > > > + * In case we can't figure out what rate it will be when the clock > > > + * describes a list of discrete rates, then just return the > > > * rate back to the caller. scmi_clk_recalc_rate() will be called > > > * after the rate is set and we'll know what rate the clock is > > > * running at then. > > > */ > > > - if (clk->info->rate_discrete) > > > + if (clk->info->rate_discrete) { > > > + ftmp = rate; > > > > No need for this assignment. > > It is needed. The round_rate handler in scmi clock protocol driver > I added in drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c expects the argument > to carry the target rate as input value and provide the closest reachable > rate as output value, hence initializing @ftmp above. I needed to preserve > the value @rate since used if this round_rate handle is not available > or returns with an error. > > Note that I could have changed scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate() > function ABI to split input target rate and output rounded rate into > 2 separated explicit arguments. No, no. Leave it. Sorry. I wasn't paying attention. regards, dan carpenter
On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > Implement clock round_rate operation for SCMI clocks that describe a > discrete rates list. Bisect into the supported rates when using SCMI > message CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES to optimize SCMI communication transfers. Let me stop here and try to understand the requirement here. So you do communicate with the firmware to arrive at this round_rate ? Does the list of discreet clock rates changes at the run-time that enables the need for it. Or will the initial list just include max and min ? > Parse the rate list array when the target rate fit in the bounds > of the command response for simplicity. > I don't understand what you mean by this. > If so some reason the sequence fails or if the SCMI driver has no > round_rate SCMI clock handler, then fallback to the legacy strategy that > returned the target rate value. > Hmm, so we perform some extra dance but we are okay to fallback to default. I am more confused. > Operation handle scmi_clk_determine_rate() is change to get the effective > supported rounded rate when there is no clock re-parenting operation > supported. Otherwise, preserve the implementation that assumed any > clock rate could be obtained. > OK, no I think I am getting some idea. Is this case where the parent has changed and the describe rates can give a different result at run-time. I need to re-read the part of the spec, but we may need some clarity so that this implementation is not vendor specific. I am yet to understand this fully. I just need to make sure spec covers this aspect and anything we add here is generic solution. I would like to avoid this extra query if not required which you seem to have made an attempt but I just want to be thorough and make sure that's what we need w.r.t the specification.
Hello Sudeep, On Monday, December 9, 2024 11:46 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > Implement clock round_rate operation for SCMI clocks that describe a > > discrete rates list. Bisect into the supported rates when using SCMI > > message CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES to optimize SCMI communication transfers. > > Let me stop here and try to understand the requirement here. So you do > communicate with the firmware to arrive at this round_rate ? Does the > list of discreet clock rates changes at the run-time that enables the > need for it. Or will the initial list just include max and min ? I don't expect the list to change at run-time. The initial list is expected to describe all supported rates. But because this list may be big, I don't think arm_scmi/clock.c driver should store the full list of all supported rates for each of the SCMI clocks. It would cost to much memory. Therefore I propose to query it at runtime, when needed, and bisect to lower the number of required transactions between the agent and the firmware. > > > Parse the rate list array when the target rate fit in the bounds > > of the command response for simplicity. > > > > I don't understand what you mean by this. I meant here that we bisect into supported rates when communicating with the firmware but once the firmware response provides list portion when target rate fits into, we just scan into that array instead of bisecting into. We could also bisect into that array but it is likely quite small (<128 byte in existing SCMI transport drivers) and that would add a bit more code for no much gain IMHO. > > > If so some reason the sequence fails or if the SCMI driver has no > > round_rate SCMI clock handler, then fallback to the legacy strategy that > > returned the target rate value. > > > > Hmm, so we perform some extra dance but we are okay to fallback to default. > I am more confused. Here, I propose to preserve the exiting sequence in clk/clk-scmi.c in case arm_scmi/clock.c does not implement this new round_rate SCMI clock operation (it can be the case if these 2 drivers are .ko modules, not well known built-in drivers). > > > Operation handle scmi_clk_determine_rate() is change to get the effective > > supported rounded rate when there is no clock re-parenting operation > > supported. Otherwise, preserve the implementation that assumed any > > clock rate could be obtained. > > > > OK, no I think I am getting some idea. Is this case where the parent has > changed and the describe rates can give a different result at run-time. This does not deal with whether parent has changed or not. I would expect the same request sent multiple times to provide the very same result. But as I said above, I don't think arm_scmi/clock.c should consume a possibly large array of memory to store all supported rate each of the SCMI clocks (that describe discrete rates). An alternate way could be to add an SCMI Clock protocol command in the spec allowing agent to query a closest supported rate, in 1 shot. Maybe this new command could return both rounded rate and the SCMI parent clock needed to reach that rounded rate, better fitting clk_determine_rate() expectations. > > I need to re-read the part of the spec, but we may need some clarity so > that this implementation is not vendor specific. I am yet to understand this > fully. I just need to make sure spec covers this aspect and anything we > add here is generic solution. > > I would like to avoid this extra query if not required which you seem to > have made an attempt but I just want to be thorough and make sure that's > what we need w.r.t the specification. Sure, I indeed prefer clear and robust implementation in the long term, being the one I propose here or another one. Regards, Etienne > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep >
On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:59:58PM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE - foss wrote: > Hello Sudeep, > > On Monday, December 9, 2024 11:46 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > Implement clock round_rate operation for SCMI clocks that describe a > > > discrete rates list. Bisect into the supported rates when using SCMI > > > message CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES to optimize SCMI communication transfers. > > > > Let me stop here and try to understand the requirement here. So you do > > communicate with the firmware to arrive at this round_rate ? Does the > > list of discreet clock rates changes at the run-time that enables the > > need for it. Or will the initial list just include max and min ? > > I don't expect the list to change at run-time. The initial list is > expected to describe all supported rates. But because this list may > be big, I don't think arm_scmi/clock.c driver should store the full list > of all supported rates for each of the SCMI clocks. It would cost to > much memory. Therefore I propose to query it at runtime, when > needed, and bisect to lower the number of required transactions > between the agent and the firmware. > Ah so, this is nothing to do with set_parent, but just an optimisation. This change optimises for space but some other platform may have all the space but the communication with SCMI platform is not good enough to make runtime calls like this change. How do we cater that then ? We need some spec-ed way or a unique way to identify what is best for the platform IMO. We can change the way you have done in this change set as someone else may complain in the future that it is costly to send such command every time a clock needs to be set. I am just guessing here may not be true. > > > > > Parse the rate list array when the target rate fit in the bounds > > > of the command response for simplicity. > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by this. > > I meant here that we bisect into supported rates when communicating > with the firmware but once the firmware response provides list portion > when target rate fits into, we just scan into that array instead of bisecting > into. We could also bisect into that array but it is likely quite small > (<128 byte in existing SCMI transport drivers) and that would add a bit > more code for no much gain IMHO. > > > > > > > If so some reason the sequence fails or if the SCMI driver has no > > > round_rate SCMI clock handler, then fallback to the legacy strategy that > > > returned the target rate value. > > > > > > > Hmm, so we perform some extra dance but we are okay to fallback to default. > > I am more confused. > > Here, I propose to preserve the exiting sequence in clk/clk-scmi.c in case > arm_scmi/clock.c does not implement this new round_rate SCMI clock > operation (it can be the case if these 2 drivers are .ko modules, not > well known built-in drivers). > I don't think it would work if it is not built on the same kernel anyways. I don't work much about this use-case. > > > > > Operation handle scmi_clk_determine_rate() is change to get the effective > > > supported rounded rate when there is no clock re-parenting operation > > > supported. Otherwise, preserve the implementation that assumed any > > > clock rate could be obtained. > > > > > > > OK, no I think I am getting some idea. Is this case where the parent has > > changed and the describe rates can give a different result at run-time. > > This does not deal with whether parent has changed or not. I would expect > the same request sent multiple times to provide the very same result. But > as I said above, I don't think arm_scmi/clock.c should consume a possibly > large array of memory to store all supported rate each of the SCMI clocks > (that describe discrete rates). > Right, my assumption was totally wrong. Thanks for confirming. > An alternate way could be to add an SCMI Clock protocol command in the > spec allowing agent to query a closest supported rate, in 1 shot. Maybe > this new command could return both rounded rate and the SCMI parent > clock needed to reach that rounded rate, better fitting clk_determine_rate() > expectations. > May be that would be ideal but you need to make a case for such a spec change. > > > > I need to re-read the part of the spec, but we may need some clarity so > > that this implementation is not vendor specific. I am yet to understand this > > fully. I just need to make sure spec covers this aspect and anything we > > add here is generic solution. > > > > I would like to avoid this extra query if not required which you seem to > > have made an attempt but I just want to be thorough and make sure that's > > what we need w.r.t the specification. > > Sure, I indeed prefer clear and robust implementation in the long term, > being the one I propose here or another one. > Good then, we can work towards achieving that. If you can specify how slow or memory hungry is it without these changes and how much this change helps your platform, we can take it up with spec authors and see if they are happy to provide some alternative to deal with this in a generic way. -- Regards, Sudeep
On Monday, December 9, 2024, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:59:58PM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE - foss wrote: > > Hello Sudeep, > > > > On Monday, December 9, 2024 11:46 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 06:39:08PM +0100, Etienne Carriere wrote: > > > > Implement clock round_rate operation for SCMI clocks that describe a > > > > discrete rates list. Bisect into the supported rates when using SCMI > > > > message CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES to optimize SCMI communication transfers. > > > > > > Let me stop here and try to understand the requirement here. So you do > > > communicate with the firmware to arrive at this round_rate ? Does the > > > list of discreet clock rates changes at the run-time that enables the > > > need for it. Or will the initial list just include max and min ? > > > > I don't expect the list to change at run-time. The initial list is > > expected to describe all supported rates. But because this list may > > be big, I don't think arm_scmi/clock.c driver should store the full list > > of all supported rates for each of the SCMI clocks. It would cost to > > much memory. Therefore I propose to query it at runtime, when > > needed, and bisect to lower the number of required transactions > > between the agent and the firmware. > > > > Ah so, this is nothing to do with set_parent, but just an optimisation. > This change optimises for space but some other platform may have all the > space but the communication with SCMI platform is not good enough to make > runtime calls like this change. How do we cater that then ? This change does not optimize memory. It implements a real clk_round_rate() operation for SCMI clocks that have a discrete supported rates list. The existing implementation does not support it, it behaves as if the requested clock is supported and let caller change the clock rate to find out which rounded rate it effectively gets. This does not suit audio and video clock constraints. How to deal between platforms with large memory/slow SCMI communication and those with the opposite? I think the easiest way would be to have a dedicated SCMI Clock protocol command. > > We need some spec-ed way or a unique way to identify what is best for > the platform IMO. We can change the way you have done in this change set > as someone else may complain in the future that it is costly to send > such command every time a clock needs to be set. I am just guessing here > may not be true. > > > > > > > > Parse the rate list array when the target rate fit in the bounds > > > > of the command response for simplicity. > > > > > > > > > > I don't understand what you mean by this. > > > > I meant here that we bisect into supported rates when communicating > > with the firmware but once the firmware response provides list portion > > when target rate fits into, we just scan into that array instead of bisecting > > into. We could also bisect into that array but it is likely quite small > > (<128 byte in existing SCMI transport drivers) and that would add a bit > > more code for no much gain IMHO. > > > > > > > > > > > If so some reason the sequence fails or if the SCMI driver has no > > > > round_rate SCMI clock handler, then fallback to the legacy strategy that > > > > returned the target rate value. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, so we perform some extra dance but we are okay to fallback to default. > > > I am more confused. > > > > Here, I propose to preserve the exiting sequence in clk/clk-scmi.c in case > > arm_scmi/clock.c does not implement this new round_rate SCMI clock > > operation (it can be the case if these 2 drivers are .ko modules, not > > well known built-in drivers). > > > > I don't think it would work if it is not built on the same kernel anyways. > I don't work much about this use-case. Using the same kernel will not enforce the driver was not modified regarding the vanilla upstream version. This may be also true for built-in modules I guess. > > > > > > > > Operation handle scmi_clk_determine_rate() is change to get the effective > > > > supported rounded rate when there is no clock re-parenting operation > > > > supported. Otherwise, preserve the implementation that assumed any > > > > clock rate could be obtained. > > > > > > > > > > OK, no I think I am getting some idea. Is this case where the parent has > > > changed and the describe rates can give a different result at run-time. > > > > This does not deal with whether parent has changed or not. I would expect > > the same request sent multiple times to provide the very same result. But > > as I said above, I don't think arm_scmi/clock.c should consume a possibly > > large array of memory to store all supported rate each of the SCMI clocks > > (that describe discrete rates). > > > > Right, my assumption was totally wrong. Thanks for confirming. > > > An alternate way could be to add an SCMI Clock protocol command in the > > spec allowing agent to query a closest supported rate, in 1 shot. Maybe > > this new command could return both rounded rate and the SCMI parent > > clock needed to reach that rounded rate, better fitting clk_determine_rate() > > expectations. > > > > May be that would be ideal but you need to make a case for such a spec change. We need effective round_rate support for STM32MP2 platforms where audio and video clocks are provided by a clock exposed by the SCMI server. These drivers detect the (possibly external) device needs at runtime and need to select an input clock that fits some constraints for quality reason. Audio quality is the most sensible to clock rate inaccuracy. > > > > > > > I need to re-read the part of the spec, but we may need some clarity so > > > that this implementation is not vendor specific. I am yet to understand this > > > fully. I just need to make sure spec covers this aspect and anything we > > > add here is generic solution. > > > > > > I would like to avoid this extra query if not required which you seem to > > > have made an attempt but I just want to be thorough and make sure that's > > > what we need w.r.t the specification. > > > > Sure, I indeed prefer clear and robust implementation in the long term, > > being the one I propose here or another one. > > > > Good then, we can work towards achieving that. If you can specify how slow > or memory hungry is it without these changes and how much this change helps > your platform, we can take it up with spec authors and see if they are happy > to provide some alternative to deal with this in a generic way. The platforms we target usually have plenty of RAM, lets say hundreds of MBytes. Not that much for some system but enough I guess to store a few hundreds of clock rates for a few dozen of clocks (few kByte of RAM). That said, thinking more and more about this, I really belive a dedicate SCMI clock protocol command would better fit platform needs in the long term. BR, Etienne > > -- > Regards, > Sudeep >
On Tuesday, December 10, 2024, Etienne CARRIERE - foss wrote: > On Monday, December 9, 2024, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 12:59:58PM +0000, Etienne CARRIERE - foss wrote: > (...) > > > > I would like to avoid this extra query if not required which you seem to > > > > have made an attempt but I just want to be thorough and make sure that's > > > > what we need w.r.t the specification. > > > > > > Sure, I indeed prefer clear and robust implementation in the long term, > > > being the one I propose here or another one. > > > > > > > Good then, we can work towards achieving that. If you can specify how slow > > or memory hungry is it without these changes and how much this change helps > > your platform, we can take it up with spec authors and see if they are happy > > to provide some alternative to deal with this in a generic way. > > The platforms we target usually have plenty of RAM, lets say hundreds of MBytes. > Not that much for some system but enough I guess to store a few hundreds of > clock rates for a few dozen of clocks (few kByte of RAM). During last SCMI monthly meeting [1], there was a suggestion to use a lazy query of the full clock discrete rates list: the first time clk_round_rate() is requested on an SCMI clock with discrete rates, we can allocated and get the full rate list once in struct scmi_clock_info. It will be ease to locally bisect or scan into these supported rates for clk_round_rate() operations. It would prevent to store the full discrete rates list for all SCMI clocks when clk_round_rate() is queried only for a very few of them. Do you think it would be a good compromise? [1] https://linaro.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SCMI/overview#Meetings BR, Etienne > > That said, thinking more and more about this, I really belive a dedicate SCMI > clock protocol command would better fit platform needs in the long term. > > BR, > Etienne > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Sudeep > > >
diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c index 09ccd6cea7f2..7bbb2ee55f4f 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c @@ -61,13 +61,20 @@ static long scmi_clk_round_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate, struct scmi_clk *clk = to_scmi_clk(hw); /* - * We can't figure out what rate it will be, so just return the + * In case we can't figure out what rate it will be when the clock + * describes a list of discrete rates, then just return the * rate back to the caller. scmi_clk_recalc_rate() will be called * after the rate is set and we'll know what rate the clock is * running at then. */ - if (clk->info->rate_discrete) + if (clk->info->rate_discrete) { + ftmp = rate; + if (scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate && + !scmi_proto_clk_ops->round_rate(clk->ph, clk->id, &ftmp)) + return ftmp; + return rate; + } fmin = clk->info->range.min_rate; fmax = clk->info->range.max_rate; @@ -122,9 +129,13 @@ static u8 scmi_clk_get_parent(struct clk_hw *hw) static int scmi_clk_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, struct clk_rate_request *req) { /* - * Suppose all the requested rates are supported, and let firmware + * If not several parents look into supported rates. Otherwise + * suppose all the requested rates are supported, and let firmware * to handle the left work. */ + if (to_scmi_clk(hw)->info->num_parents < 2) + req->rate = scmi_clk_round_rate(hw, req->rate, NULL); + return 0; } diff --git a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c index 34fde0b88098..e416476dd336 100644 --- a/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c +++ b/drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c @@ -999,6 +999,98 @@ static int scmi_clock_config_oem_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, NULL, oem_val, atomic); } +static int scmi_clock_round_rate(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, + u32 clk_id, u64 *rate) + +{ + const struct scmi_msg_resp_clock_describe_rates *resp; + size_t index_low, index_high, index_tmp, count, i; + struct scmi_msg_clock_describe_rates *msg; + u64 rate_low, rate_high, target_rate; + struct scmi_xfer *xfer; + int ret; + struct clock_info *ci = ph->get_priv(ph); + struct scmi_clock_info *clk = ci->clk + clk_id; + + if (clk_id >= ci->num_clocks || + WARN_ONCE(!clk->rate_discrete, "Unexpected linear rates")) + return -EINVAL; + + target_rate = *rate; + index_low = 0; + index_high = clk->list.num_rates - 1; + rate_low = clk->list.min_rate; + rate_high = clk->list.max_rate; + + if (target_rate <= rate_low) { + *rate = rate_low; + return 0; + } + if (target_rate >= rate_high) { + *rate = rate_high; + return 0; + } + + ret = ph->xops->xfer_get_init(ph, CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES, sizeof(*msg), 0, + &xfer); + if (ret) + return ret; + + resp = xfer->rx.buf; + msg = xfer->tx.buf; + msg->id = cpu_to_le32(clk_id); + + while (true) { + index_tmp = (index_low + index_high) / 2; + + ph->xops->reset_rx_to_maxsz(ph, xfer); + msg->id = cpu_to_le32(clk_id); + msg->rate_index = cpu_to_le32(index_tmp); + + ret = ph->xops->do_xfer(ph, xfer); + if (!ret && (!RATE_DISCRETE(resp->num_rates_flags) || + !NUM_RETURNED(resp->num_rates_flags))) + ret = -EPROTO; + if (ret) + break; + + count = NUM_RETURNED(resp->num_rates_flags); + + if (target_rate < RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[0])) { + index_high = index_tmp; + rate_high = RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[0]); + } else if (target_rate > RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[count - 1])) { + index_low = index_tmp + count - 1; + rate_low = RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[count - 1]); + } else { + for (i = 1; i < count; i++) + if (target_rate <= RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[i])) + break; + + index_low = index_tmp + i - 1; + rate_low = RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[i - 1]); + + if (i < count) { + index_high = index_tmp + i; + rate_high = RATE_TO_U64(resp->rate[i]); + } + } + + if (index_high <= index_low + 1) { + if (target_rate - rate_low > rate_high - target_rate) + *rate = rate_high; + else + *rate = rate_low; + + break; + } + } + + ph->xops->xfer_put(ph, xfer); + + return ret; +} + static int scmi_clock_count_get(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph) { struct clock_info *ci = ph->get_priv(ph); @@ -1027,6 +1119,7 @@ static const struct scmi_clk_proto_ops clk_proto_ops = { .info_get = scmi_clock_info_get, .rate_get = scmi_clock_rate_get, .rate_set = scmi_clock_rate_set, + .round_rate = scmi_clock_round_rate, .enable = scmi_clock_enable, .disable = scmi_clock_disable, .state_get = scmi_clock_state_get, diff --git a/include/linux/scmi_protocol.h b/include/linux/scmi_protocol.h index 240478bb8476..30cf373c3f8b 100644 --- a/include/linux/scmi_protocol.h +++ b/include/linux/scmi_protocol.h @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ enum scmi_clock_oem_config { * @info_get: get the information of the specified clock * @rate_get: request the current clock rate of a clock * @rate_set: set the clock rate of a clock + * @round_rate: tell which is the nearest rate a clock supports (w/o setting it) * @enable: enables the specified clock * @disable: disables the specified clock * @state_get: get the status of the specified clock @@ -108,6 +109,8 @@ struct scmi_clk_proto_ops { u64 *rate); int (*rate_set)(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, u32 clk_id, u64 rate); + int (*round_rate)(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, u32 clk_id, + u64 *rate); int (*enable)(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, u32 clk_id, bool atomic); int (*disable)(const struct scmi_protocol_handle *ph, u32 clk_id,
Implement clock round_rate operation for SCMI clocks that describe a discrete rates list. Bisect into the supported rates when using SCMI message CLOCK_DESCRIBE_RATES to optimize SCMI communication transfers. Parse the rate list array when the target rate fit in the bounds of the command response for simplicity. If so some reason the sequence fails or if the SCMI driver has no round_rate SCMI clock handler, then fallback to the legacy strategy that returned the target rate value. Operation handle scmi_clk_determine_rate() is change to get the effective supported rounded rate when there is no clock re-parenting operation supported. Otherwise, preserve the implementation that assumed any clock rate could be obtained. Signed-off-by: Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@foss.st.com> --- Changes since patch series v1: - New patch introduced in this v2 series. --- drivers/clk/clk-scmi.c | 17 +++++- drivers/firmware/arm_scmi/clock.c | 93 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/scmi_protocol.h | 3 + 3 files changed, 110 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)