| Message ID | 20220408045908.21671-11-rex-bc.chen@mediatek.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpufreq: mediatek: Cleanup and support MT8183 and MT8186 | expand |
Il 08/04/22 06:59, Rex-BC Chen ha scritto: > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> > > For some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8186, it's possible that the sram regulator > is shared between CPU and CCI. > > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@mediatek.com> writes: > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> > > For some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8186, it's possible that the sram regulator > is shared between CPU and CCI. > > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> nit: missing your sign-off. > --- > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > index 9e9bce0ff235..8f688d47e64b 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int cpu) > } > > /* Both presence and absence of sram regulator are valid cases. */ > - info->sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram"); > + info->sram_reg = regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "sram"); The changelog says that this regulator may be shared with CCI, so I understand it's no longer exclusive. But here you make it optional, which should be explained in the changelog. If it's not actually optional, then it should just be normal "get". Kevin
On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:32 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@mediatek.com> writes: > > > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> > > > > For some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8186, it's possible that the sram > > regulator > > is shared between CPU and CCI. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> > > nit: missing your sign-off. > > > --- > > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > index 9e9bce0ff235..8f688d47e64b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c > > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(struct > > mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int cpu) > > } > > > > /* Both presence and absence of sram regulator are valid cases. > > */ > > - info->sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram"); > > + info->sram_reg = regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "sram"); > > The changelog says that this regulator may be shared with CCI, so I > understand it's no longer exclusive. But here you make it optional, > which should be explained in the changelog. If it's not actually > optional, then it should just be normal "get". > > Kevin Hello Kevin, Since cpufreq and cci devfreq might share the same sram regulator in MediaTek SoC, it is no longer exclusive as you mentioned. The reason to use regulator_get_optional is we hope regulator framework can return error for error handling rather than a dummy handler from regulator_get api. I will add this to commit message in next version. Thanks. BRs, Rex
Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@mediatek.com> writes: > On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 13:32 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Rex-BC Chen <rex-bc.chen@mediatek.com> writes: >> >> > From: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> >> > >> > For some MediaTek SoCs, like MT8186, it's possible that the sram >> > regulator >> > is shared between CPU and CCI. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jia-Wei Chang <jia-wei.chang@mediatek.com> >> >> nit: missing your sign-off. >> >> > --- >> > drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c | 2 +- >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c >> > b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c >> > index 9e9bce0ff235..8f688d47e64b 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c >> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c >> > @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(struct >> > mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int cpu) >> > } >> > >> > /* Both presence and absence of sram regulator are valid cases. >> > */ >> > - info->sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram"); >> > + info->sram_reg = regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "sram"); >> >> The changelog says that this regulator may be shared with CCI, so I >> understand it's no longer exclusive. But here you make it optional, >> which should be explained in the changelog. If it's not actually >> optional, then it should just be normal "get". >> >> Kevin > > Hello Kevin, > > Since cpufreq and cci devfreq might share the same sram regulator in > MediaTek SoC, it is no longer exclusive as you mentioned. > > The reason to use regulator_get_optional is we hope regulator framework > can return error for error handling rather than a dummy handler from > regulator_get api. > > I will add this to commit message in next version. OK, sounds good. Thanks, Kevin
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c index 9e9bce0ff235..8f688d47e64b 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/mediatek-cpufreq.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static int mtk_cpu_dvfs_info_init(struct mtk_cpu_dvfs_info *info, int cpu) } /* Both presence and absence of sram regulator are valid cases. */ - info->sram_reg = regulator_get_exclusive(cpu_dev, "sram"); + info->sram_reg = regulator_get_optional(cpu_dev, "sram"); if (IS_ERR(info->sram_reg)) info->sram_reg = NULL; else {