From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V3 4/7] cpufreq: add generic cpufreq driver
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:13:22 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EF0A612.2060400@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111220015934.GD15863@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net>
On 12/19/2011 07:59 PM, Richard Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:00:44AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 08:39 AM, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:19:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:12AM +0000, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:21:40AM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
>>>>>> It support single core and multi-core ARM SoCs. But currently it assume
>>>>>> all cores share the same frequency and voltage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@linaro.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq | 7 +
>>>>>> drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig | 8 +
>>>>>> drivers/cpufreq/Makefile | 2 +
>>>>>> drivers/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq.c | 251 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> 4 files changed, 268 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq
>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..15dd780
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/cpufreq/generic-cpufreq
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
>>>>>> +Generic cpufreq driver
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +Required properties in /cpus/cpu at 0:
>>>>>> +- compatible : "generic-cpufreq"
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not convinced this is the best way to do this. By requiring a
>>>>> generic-cpufreq compatible string we're encoding Linux driver
>>>>> information into the hardware description. The only way I can see to
>>>>> avoid this is to provide a generic_clk_cpufreq_init() function that
>>>>> platforms can call in their machine init code to use the driver.
>>
>> Agreed on the compatible string.
> Assume you reject to use compatible string.
>> It's putting Linux specifics into DT.
>>
>> You could flip this around and have the module make a call into the
>> kernel to determine whether to initialize or not. Then platforms could
>> set a flag to indicate this.
> Could you make it more clear? kernel global variable, macro, or function?
Any of those. Of course, direct access to variables across modules is
discouraged, so it would probably be a function that checks a variable.
> - Following your idea, I think, we can add in driver/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:
> int (*clk_reg_cpufreq_get_op_table) (struct op_table *tbl, int *size);
> SoC code set the callback. If it's NULL, driver will exit. We can get rid
> of DT. It'll make cpufreq core dirty, but it's the only file built-in.
But aren't you getting the operating points from the DT? Then you don't
want to put this code into each platform.
>
> - Drop module support. SoC call generic_clk_cpufreq_init as Jamie said.
>
>>
>>>> It'll prevent the driver from being a kernel module.
>>>
>>> Hmm, that's not very nice either! I guess you _could_ add an
>>> of_machine_is_compatible() check against a list of compatible machines
>>> in the driver but that feels a little gross. Hopefully Rob or Grant
>>> have a good alternative!
>>>
>>
>> What does cpufreq core do if multiple drivers are registered?
> current cpufreq core only support one cpufreq_driver. Others will fail
> except the first time.
Then whoever gets there first wins. Make your driver register late and
if someone doesn't want to use it they can register a custom driver earlier.
Rob
>> Perhaps a
>> ranking is needed and this would only get enabled if there are no other
>> drivers and other conditions like having the clock "cpu" present are met.
> We'd better keep cpufreq core simple. For this driver, register cpufreq_driver
> is the last thing after checking all conditions.
>
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>>> Hi Grant & Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Could you comment?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +- cpu-freqs : cpu frequency points it support
>>>>>> +- cpu-volts : cpu voltages required by the frequency point at the same index
>>>>>> +- trans-latency : transition_latency
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
>>>>>> index e24a2a1..216eecd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -179,6 +179,14 @@ config CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If in doubt, say N.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +config GENERIC_CPUFREQ_DRIVER
>>>>>> + bool "Generic cpufreq driver using clock/regulator/devicetree"
>>>>>> + help
>>>>>> + This adds generic CPUFreq driver. It assumes all
>>>>>> + cores of the CPU share the same clock and voltage.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + If in doubt, say N.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this needs dependencies on HAVE_CLK, OF and REGULATOR.
>>>> right, Thanks. I can not check clk before generic clock framework
>>>> come in.
>>>> Added:
>>>> depends on OF && REGULATOR
>>>> select CPU_FREQ_TABLE
>>>
>>> You can still use HAVE_CLK. That symbol has been around for ages and
>>> any platform implementing the clk API should select it so it's fine to
>>> depend on it even before there is a generic struct clk.
> You are right. Thanks.
>
> Richard
>>>
>>> Jamie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-12-20 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-19 3:21 [PATCH V3 0/7] add a generic cpufreq driver Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 1/7] ARM: add cpufreq transiton notifier to adjust loops_per_jiffy for smp Richard Zhao
2011-12-21 14:21 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 2/7] arm/imx: cpufreq: remove loops_per_jiffy recalculate " Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 3/7] cpufreq: OMAP: " Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 4/7] cpufreq: add generic cpufreq driver Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 10:05 ` Jamie Iles
2011-12-19 14:19 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 14:39 ` Jamie Iles
2011-12-19 15:00 ` Rob Herring
2011-12-20 1:59 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-20 15:13 ` Rob Herring [this message]
2011-12-20 15:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-12-20 14:59 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-20 23:27 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-20 23:48 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-21 1:20 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-21 1:32 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-21 2:24 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-21 2:33 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-21 2:51 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-21 9:27 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-21 9:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-12-21 11:44 ` Kay Sievers
2011-12-21 12:12 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-21 12:49 ` Kay Sievers
2011-12-21 14:19 ` Richard Zhao
2011-12-22 0:50 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-21 12:11 ` Mark Brown
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 5/7] dts/imx6q: add cpufreq property Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 6/7] arm/imx6q: register arm_clk as cpu to clkdev Richard Zhao
2011-12-19 3:21 ` [PATCH V3 7/7] arm/imx6q: select ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ Richard Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EF0A612.2060400@gmail.com \
--to=robherring2@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).