From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDE0712D20C; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711540700; cv=none; b=mPG+FnScAyKOmjaqP5bkPGYPXaFXutNigQA+38g6C8SFTZyA+H57yUqGokYzmIkd6t88cVwhwbWlhLW+xze9LhgfRRzxHMDzhGfnGV8ft069bSnPyaxfJUTmQWF8sfv7ZaVNUh2+yBa8h54yCL/g5qU4Byj8+q67MK6wxGMHZds= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711540700; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UMXOaEjk7l6Z5Jq+ZDCjl9c9nstjDj7M5d9lufmVctA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=s7f0qYXLcM9o0Mewqr2N88BpECa1mDKmLd/twZT/KvhDPfFNPfcme59pVstMlHR8Ov2mHWU1kmLmpyk03jJnR1QslrmDpGKs/9P5hc9oRL8gBNB+psYbE322jZIcCyntyYtPBeD+ffkAmcd0vascxH9p686iJPyFUPdrsfsCl4k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A422F4; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 04:58:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C5423F694; Wed, 27 Mar 2024 04:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:58:12 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Andre Przywara Cc: Samuel Holland , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sudeep Holla , Brandon Cheo Fusi , Martin Botka , Martin Botka , Chris Morgan , Ryan Walklin , Mark Rutland , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Yangtao Li , Viresh Kumar , Nishanth Menon , Stephen Boyd , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Chen-Yu Tsai , Jernej Skrabec , "Rafael J . Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] cpufreq: sun50i: Add H616 support Message-ID: References: <20240326114743.712167-1-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20240326114743.712167-7-andre.przywara@arm.com> <65e86555-761e-4e26-8778-e2452876b5e4@sholland.org> <20240327114608.2ffca28e@minigeek.lan> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240327114608.2ffca28e@minigeek.lan> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:46:08AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 22:46:27 -0500 > Samuel Holland wrote: > > Hi Samuel, > > > On 3/26/24 06:47, Andre Przywara wrote: > > > From: Martin Botka > > > > > > The Allwinner H616/H618 SoCs have different OPP tables per SoC version > > > and die revision. The SoC version is stored in NVMEM, as before, though > > > encoded differently. The die revision is in a different register, in the > > > SRAM controller. Firmware already exports that value in a standardised > > > way, through the SMCCC SoCID mechanism. We need both values, as some chips > > > have the same SoC version, but they don't support the same frequencies and > > > they get differentiated by the die revision. > > > > > > Add the new compatible string and tie the new translation function to > > > it. This mechanism not only covers the original H616 SoC, but also its > > > very close sibling SoCs H618 and H700, so add them to the list as well. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Botka > > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara > > > --- > > > drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > > index bd170611c7906..f9e9fc340f848 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/sun50i-cpufreq-nvmem.c > > > @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt > > > > > > +#include > > > #include > > > #include > > > #include > > > @@ -46,14 +47,71 @@ static u32 sun50i_h6_efuse_xlate(u32 speedbin) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +/* > > > + * Judging by the OPP tables in the vendor BSP, the quality order of the > > > + * returned speedbin index is 4 -> 0/2 -> 3 -> 1, from worst to best. > > > + * 0 and 2 seem identical from the OPP tables' point of view. > > > + */ > > > +static u32 sun50i_h616_efuse_xlate(u32 speedbin) > > > +{ > > > + int ver_bits = arm_smccc_get_soc_id_revision(); > > > > This needs a Kconfig dependency on ARM_SMCCC_SOC_ID. > > That was my first impulse as well, but it's actually not true: > ARM_SMCCC_SOC_ID just protects the sysfs export code, not this function > here. That does just depend on HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY, which gets > selected by ARM_GIC_V3, which gets selected by CONFIG_ARM64. So the > arm64 kernel is safe. It is safe to add the dependency explicitly so that if GICV3 decides to drop it, this won't be affected. Thoughts ? > Now apart from ARM(32) (where the situation seems a bit more complex) I > just realise that this would torpedo Brandon's D1 efforts, so I need to > add this change I played with to provide an alternative: > > static int get_soc_id_revision(void) > { > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY > return arm_smccc_get_soc_id_revision(); > #else > /* Return the value for the worse die revision, to be safe. */ > return 2; > #endif > } > > Does that look acceptable, despite the #ifdef? > if(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SMCCC_DISCOVERY)) instead ? -- Regards, Sudeep