* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems
2023-02-02 22:00 [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems Douglas Anderson
@ 2023-02-02 22:35 ` Konrad Dybcio
2023-02-02 22:45 ` Konrad Dybcio
2023-02-02 23:38 ` Konrad Dybcio
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Konrad Dybcio @ 2023-02-02 22:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Douglas Anderson, Viresh Kumar, Manivannan Sadhasivam
Cc: swboyd, mka, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Sasha Levin, linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, linux-pm
On 2.02.2023 23:00, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> On a sc7180-based Chromebook, when I go to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq I can see:
>
> cpuinfo_cur_freq:2995200
> cpuinfo_max_freq:1804800
> scaling_available_frequencies:300000 576000 ... 1708800 1804800
> scaling_cur_freq:1804800
> scaling_max_freq:1804800
>
> As you can see the `cpuinfo_cur_freq` is bogus. It turns out that this
> bogus info started showing up as of commit 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq:
> qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()"). That
> commit seems to assume that everyone is on the LMH bandwagon, but
> sc7180 isn't.
>
> Let's go back to the old code in the case where LMH isn't used.
>
> Fixes: 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
Actually I hit the exact same issue when working on CPRh-aware
cpufreq with manual OSM programming.. LMh gets enabled by the firmware
on most recent platforms, but it's not the case for some old-timers.
I figured that adding a bool broken_lmh_freq in driver data would be
a good middleground between reverting that patch and ignoring the
issue, because it *does* matter what this function reports on LMh-
enabled platforms (yes, the subsystems are bluepilled between each
other and OSM/EPSS does not know the *real* throttled frequency),
but obviously we don't want to report 2.99Ghz otherwise..
I think 7280 had an issue where a SoC-specific compatible was not
introduced when the DT part was first merged, same goes for 6115.
6115 does have firmware-enabled LMh, not sure about 7280. In case
you wanted to go that route, I think it would be suitable to add
a blacklist of retroactively-broken platforms (match-by-machine-
compatible; don't scream at me bindings folks, I guess that's the
least messy solution) in addition to either matching the SoC-specific
compatible to epss_broken_lmh_driver_data.
Or we can forget about old DTs and just bind qcom,sc7180-cpufreq-hw
(and 7280, maybe? please check.) to this new driver data without
checking the machine compatible.
Konrad
>
> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index 9505a812d6a1..957cf6bb8c05 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -143,40 +143,42 @@ static unsigned long qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
> return lval * xo_rate;
> }
>
> -/* Get the current frequency of the CPU (after throttling) */
> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> +/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + unsigned int index;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> data = policy->driver_data;
> + soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>
> - return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
> + index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> + index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> +
> + return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> }
>
> -/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> - const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> - unsigned int index;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> data = policy->driver_data;
> - soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>
> - index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> - index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> + if (data->throttle_irq >= 0)
> + return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
>
> - return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> + return qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(cpu);
> }
>
> static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems
2023-02-02 22:35 ` Konrad Dybcio
@ 2023-02-02 22:45 ` Konrad Dybcio
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Konrad Dybcio @ 2023-02-02 22:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Douglas Anderson, Viresh Kumar, Manivannan Sadhasivam
Cc: swboyd, mka, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Sasha Levin, linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, linux-pm
On 2.02.2023 23:35, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 2.02.2023 23:00, Douglas Anderson wrote:
>> On a sc7180-based Chromebook, when I go to
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq I can see:
>>
>> cpuinfo_cur_freq:2995200
>> cpuinfo_max_freq:1804800
>> scaling_available_frequencies:300000 576000 ... 1708800 1804800
>> scaling_cur_freq:1804800
>> scaling_max_freq:1804800
>>
>> As you can see the `cpuinfo_cur_freq` is bogus. It turns out that this
>> bogus info started showing up as of commit 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq:
>> qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()"). That
>> commit seems to assume that everyone is on the LMH bandwagon, but
>> sc7180 isn't.
>>
>> Let's go back to the old code in the case where LMH isn't used.
>>
>> Fixes: 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()")
>> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
>> ---
> Actually I hit the exact same issue when working on CPRh-aware
> cpufreq with manual OSM programming.. LMh gets enabled by the firmware
> on most recent platforms, but it's not the case for some old-timers.
>
Ignore this email, I can't read.
Konrad
> I figured that adding a bool broken_lmh_freq in driver data would be
> a good middleground between reverting that patch and ignoring the
> issue, because it *does* matter what this function reports on LMh-
> enabled platforms (yes, the subsystems are bluepilled between each
> other and OSM/EPSS does not know the *real* throttled frequency),
> but obviously we don't want to report 2.99Ghz otherwise..
>
> I think 7280 had an issue where a SoC-specific compatible was not
> introduced when the DT part was first merged, same goes for 6115.
> 6115 does have firmware-enabled LMh, not sure about 7280. In case
> you wanted to go that route, I think it would be suitable to add
> a blacklist of retroactively-broken platforms (match-by-machine-
> compatible; don't scream at me bindings folks, I guess that's the
> least messy solution) in addition to either matching the SoC-specific
> compatible to epss_broken_lmh_driver_data.
>
> Or we can forget about old DTs and just bind qcom,sc7180-cpufreq-hw
> (and 7280, maybe? please check.) to this new driver data without
> checking the machine compatible.
>
>
>
> Konrad
>>
>> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> index 9505a812d6a1..957cf6bb8c05 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
>> @@ -143,40 +143,42 @@ static unsigned long qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
>> return lval * xo_rate;
>> }
>>
>> -/* Get the current frequency of the CPU (after throttling) */
>> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
>> +/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
>> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
>> {
>> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
>> + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
>> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>> + unsigned int index;
>>
>> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
>> if (!policy)
>> return 0;
>>
>> data = policy->driver_data;
>> + soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>>
>> - return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
>> + index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
>> + index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
>> +
>> + return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
>> }
>>
>> -/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
>> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
>> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
>> {
>> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
>> - const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
>> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
>> - unsigned int index;
>>
>> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
>> if (!policy)
>> return 0;
>>
>> data = policy->driver_data;
>> - soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>>
>> - index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
>> - index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
>> + if (data->throttle_irq >= 0)
>> + return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
>>
>> - return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
>> + return qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(cpu);
>> }
>>
>> static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems
2023-02-02 22:00 [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems Douglas Anderson
2023-02-02 22:35 ` Konrad Dybcio
@ 2023-02-02 23:38 ` Konrad Dybcio
2023-02-04 14:58 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2023-02-06 4:10 ` Viresh Kumar
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Konrad Dybcio @ 2023-02-02 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Douglas Anderson, Viresh Kumar, Manivannan Sadhasivam
Cc: swboyd, mka, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rafael J. Wysocki,
Sasha Levin, linux-arm-msm, linux-kernel, linux-pm
On 2.02.2023 23:00, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> On a sc7180-based Chromebook, when I go to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq I can see:
>
> cpuinfo_cur_freq:2995200
> cpuinfo_max_freq:1804800
> scaling_available_frequencies:300000 576000 ... 1708800 1804800
> scaling_cur_freq:1804800
> scaling_max_freq:1804800
>
> As you can see the `cpuinfo_cur_freq` is bogus. It turns out that this
> bogus info started showing up as of commit 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq:
> qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()"). That
> commit seems to assume that everyone is on the LMH bandwagon, but
> sc7180 isn't.
>
> Let's go back to the old code in the case where LMH isn't used.
>
> Fixes: 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
I read it again, this time properly.
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Konrad
>
> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index 9505a812d6a1..957cf6bb8c05 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -143,40 +143,42 @@ static unsigned long qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
> return lval * xo_rate;
> }
>
> -/* Get the current frequency of the CPU (after throttling) */
> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> +/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + unsigned int index;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> data = policy->driver_data;
> + soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>
> - return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
> + index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> + index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> +
> + return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> }
>
> -/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> - const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> - unsigned int index;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> data = policy->driver_data;
> - soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>
> - index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> - index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> + if (data->throttle_irq >= 0)
> + return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
>
> - return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> + return qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(cpu);
> }
>
> static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems
2023-02-02 22:00 [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems Douglas Anderson
2023-02-02 22:35 ` Konrad Dybcio
2023-02-02 23:38 ` Konrad Dybcio
@ 2023-02-04 14:58 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2023-02-06 4:10 ` Viresh Kumar
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam @ 2023-02-04 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Douglas Anderson
Cc: Viresh Kumar, swboyd, mka, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson,
Konrad Dybcio, Rafael J. Wysocki, Sasha Levin, linux-arm-msm,
linux-kernel, linux-pm
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 02:00:23PM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> On a sc7180-based Chromebook, when I go to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq I can see:
>
> cpuinfo_cur_freq:2995200
> cpuinfo_max_freq:1804800
> scaling_available_frequencies:300000 576000 ... 1708800 1804800
> scaling_cur_freq:1804800
> scaling_max_freq:1804800
>
> As you can see the `cpuinfo_cur_freq` is bogus. It turns out that this
> bogus info started showing up as of commit 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq:
> qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()"). That
> commit seems to assume that everyone is on the LMH bandwagon, but
> sc7180 isn't.
>
Ah, missed that part.
> Let's go back to the old code in the case where LMH isn't used.
>
Thanks for fixing!
> Fixes: 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>
Thanks,
Mani
> ---
>
> drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> index 9505a812d6a1..957cf6bb8c05 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c
> @@ -143,40 +143,42 @@ static unsigned long qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data)
> return lval * xo_rate;
> }
>
> -/* Get the current frequency of the CPU (after throttling) */
> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> +/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> + const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> + unsigned int index;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> data = policy->driver_data;
> + soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>
> - return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
> + index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> + index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> +
> + return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> }
>
> -/* Get the frequency requested by the cpufreq core for the CPU */
> -static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(unsigned int cpu)
> +static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_get(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> struct qcom_cpufreq_data *data;
> - const struct qcom_cpufreq_soc_data *soc_data;
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy;
> - unsigned int index;
>
> policy = cpufreq_cpu_get_raw(cpu);
> if (!policy)
> return 0;
>
> data = policy->driver_data;
> - soc_data = qcom_cpufreq.soc_data;
>
> - index = readl_relaxed(data->base + soc_data->reg_perf_state);
> - index = min(index, LUT_MAX_ENTRIES - 1);
> + if (data->throttle_irq >= 0)
> + return qcom_lmh_get_throttle_freq(data) / HZ_PER_KHZ;
>
> - return policy->freq_table[index].frequency;
> + return qcom_cpufreq_get_freq(cpu);
> }
>
> static unsigned int qcom_cpufreq_hw_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> --
> 2.39.1.519.gcb327c4b5f-goog
>
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems
2023-02-02 22:00 [PATCH] cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix cpufreq_driver->get() for non-LMH systems Douglas Anderson
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-04 14:58 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
@ 2023-02-06 4:10 ` Viresh Kumar
3 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Viresh Kumar @ 2023-02-06 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Douglas Anderson
Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam, swboyd, mka, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson,
Konrad Dybcio, Rafael J. Wysocki, Sasha Levin, linux-arm-msm,
linux-kernel, linux-pm
On 02-02-23, 14:00, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> On a sc7180-based Chromebook, when I go to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq I can see:
>
> cpuinfo_cur_freq:2995200
> cpuinfo_max_freq:1804800
> scaling_available_frequencies:300000 576000 ... 1708800 1804800
> scaling_cur_freq:1804800
> scaling_max_freq:1804800
>
> As you can see the `cpuinfo_cur_freq` is bogus. It turns out that this
> bogus info started showing up as of commit 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq:
> qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()"). That
> commit seems to assume that everyone is on the LMH bandwagon, but
> sc7180 isn't.
>
> Let's go back to the old code in the case where LMH isn't used.
>
> Fixes: 205f5e984d30 ("cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()")
This is incorrect.
Fixes: c72cf0cb1d77 ("cpufreq: qcom-hw: Fix the frequency returned by cpufreq_driver->get()")
Applied. Thanks.
--
viresh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread