public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Huang, Tao" <huangtao@rock-chips.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, davidriley@chromium.org,
	heiko@sntech.de, pawel.moll@arm.com,
	ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will.deacon@arm.com, dianders@chromium.org,
	smbarber@chromium.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, galak@codeaurora.org, jwerner@chromium.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@rock-chips.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for RK3399 SoCs
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:19:28 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <571DEF30.90604@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160425100531.GC25087@leverpostej>

Hi, Mark:
On 2016年04月25日 18:05, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:48:51PM +0800, Huang, Tao wrote:
>> Hi, Marc:
>> On 2016年04月21日 19:30, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:47:20 +0800
>>> "Huang, Tao" <huangtao@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, Mark:
>>>> On 2016年04月21日 18:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:58:12AM +0800, Jianqun Xu wrote:
>>>>>> +		cpu_l0: cpu@0 {
>>>>>> +			device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>> +			enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>> +			#cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>> +			clocks = <&cru ARMCLKL>;
>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>> +		cpu_b0: cpu@100 {
>>>>>> +			device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>> +			compatible = "arm,cortex-a72", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x100>;
>>>>>> +			enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>> +			#cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>> +			clocks = <&cru ARMCLKB>;
>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	arm-pmu {
>>>>>> +		compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
>>>>>> +		interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>>> +	};
>>>>> This is wrong, and must go. There should be a separate node for the PMU
>>>>> of each microarchitecture, with the appropriate compatible string to
>>>>> represent that (see the juno dts).
>>>> You are right. The first version we wrote is:
>>>>     pmu_a53 {
>>>>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>>>>         interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>         interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_l0>,
>>>>                      <&cpu_l1>,
>>>>                      <&cpu_l2>,
>>>>                      <&cpu_l3>;
>>>>     };
>>>>
>>>>     pmu_a72 {
>>>>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu";
>>>>         interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>         interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_b0>,
>>>>                      <&cpu_b1>;
>>>>     };
>>>> but unfortunately, the arm pmu driver do not support PPI in two cluster
>>>> well,
>>>> so we have to replace with this implementation.
>>>>> In this case things are messier as the same PPI number is being used
>>>>> across clusters. Marc (Cc'd) has been working on PPI partitions, which
>>>>> should allow us to support that.
>>>> Great! So what we can do right now? Wait this feature, and delete
>>>> arm-pmu node?
>>> I'd rather you have a look at the patches, test them with your HW,
>>> and comment on what doesn't work!
>>>
>>> You can find the patches over there:
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/11/182
>>>
>>> and on the following branch:
>>>
>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git
>>> irq/percpu-partition
>> I tested these patches. Because our kernel is based on v4.4, so I back
>> port most changes about
>> include/linux/irqdomain.h
>> kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> and change rk3399.dtsi base on your arm,gic-v3.txt:
>>
>>      gic: interrupt-controller@fee00000 {
>>          compatible = "arm,gic-v3";
>> -        #interrupt-cells = <3>;
>> +        #interrupt-cells = <4>;
>>          #address-cells = <2>;
>>          #size-cells = <2>;
>> ...
>> +
>> +        ppi-partitions {
>> +            part0: interrupt-partition-0 {
>> +                affinity = <&cpu_l0 &cpu_l1 &cpu_l2 &cpu_l3>;
>> +            };
>> +
>> +            part1: interrupt-partition-1 {
>> +                affinity = <&cpu_b0 &cpu_b1>;
>> +            };
>> +        };
>>
>> and change every interrupts from three cells to four cells, such as
>>      saradc: saradc@ff100000 {
>>          compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-saradc";
>>          reg = <0x0 0xff100000 0x0 0x100>;
>> -        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 62 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> +        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 62 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
>>          #io-channel-cells = <1>;
>>          clocks = <&cru SCLK_SARADC>, <&cru PCLK_SARADC>;
>>          clock-names = "saradc", "apb_pclk";
>>
>> and pmu define as:
>>     pmu_a53 {
>>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>>         interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW &part0>;
>>         interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_l0>,
>>                      <&cpu_l1>,
>>                      <&cpu_l2>,
>>                      <&cpu_l3>;
>>     };
>>
>>     pmu_a72 {
>>         compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu", "arm,cortex-a57-pmu";
> That Cortex-A57 PMU fallback should just go. We already have Cortex-A72
> PMU support upstream, and I believe there are sufficient differences
> such that the Cortex-A72 PMU is not a strict superset of the Cortex-A57
> PMU.
As I say, I tested on v4.4, I don't back port
arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c, so I use "arm,cortex-a57-pmu". Upstream
will use "arm,cortex-a72-pmu" only.
BTW, I don't see any differences between A72/A57 in source code:

static int armv8_a57_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
{
        armv8_pmu_init(cpu_pmu);
        cpu_pmu->name                   = "armv8_cortex_a57";
        cpu_pmu->map_event              = armv8_a57_map_event;
        cpu_pmu->pmu.attr_groups        = armv8_pmuv3_attr_groups;
        return armv8pmu_probe_num_events(cpu_pmu);
}

static int armv8_a72_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
{
        armv8_pmu_init(cpu_pmu);
        cpu_pmu->name                   = "armv8_cortex_a72";
        cpu_pmu->map_event              = armv8_a57_map_event;
        cpu_pmu->pmu.attr_groups        = armv8_pmuv3_attr_groups;
        return armv8pmu_probe_num_events(cpu_pmu);
}

static const struct of_device_id armv8_pmu_of_device_ids[] = {
...
        {.compatible = "arm,cortex-a57-pmu",    .data = armv8_a57_pmu_init},
        {.compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu",    .data = armv8_a72_pmu_init},
...
        {},
};

>
>>         interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW &part1>;
>>         interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_b0>,
>>                      <&cpu_b1>;
>>     };
>>
>> It can boot. And I test with Android simpleperf stat and perf top, it works!
>> So these patches work on RK3399.
> There is still work to do in the driver, as Marc pointed out.
>
> While it may appear to work, it will be requesting percpu IRQs on wrong
> CPUs (e.g. see how cpu_pmu_request_irq calls cpu_pmu_enable_percpu_irq,
> on each CPU), and we will need to update the binding codument to cover
> this case.
I also set interrupt-affinity, maybe this avoid problem. I add some
debug print on driver, I believe irq is request on right cpus.

Thanks,
Huang Tao

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-25 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-20  3:15 [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for rk3399 SoCs Jianqun Xu
2016-04-21  3:58 ` [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for RK3399 SoCs Jianqun Xu
2016-04-21 10:19   ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-21 10:47     ` Huang, Tao
2016-04-21 11:30       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-04-21 20:24         ` Heiko Stübner
2016-04-21 21:12           ` Marc Zyngier
2016-04-22  1:50             ` jay.xu
2016-04-22  7:44               ` Marc Zyngier
2016-04-25  9:48         ` Huang, Tao
2016-04-25 10:05           ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 10:19             ` Huang, Tao [this message]
2016-04-25 10:47               ` Mark Rutland
2016-04-25 12:27                 ` Huang, Tao
2016-04-25 10:06           ` Marc Zyngier
2016-04-25 10:39             ` Marc Zyngier
2016-04-25 11:50               ` Huang, Tao
2016-04-25 12:04                 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-04-21 21:02   ` Rob Herring
2016-04-21 22:02   ` Heiko Stübner
2016-04-21 22:38     ` Doug Anderson
2016-04-21 22:49       ` Heiko Stübner
2016-04-22  4:23       ` Huang, Tao
2016-04-21 21:48 ` [PATCH] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for rk3399 SoCs Brian Norris
2016-04-21 22:32   ` Heiko Stübner
2016-04-22  5:21 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add support for RK3399 Jianqun Xu
2016-04-22  5:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] Documentation: rockchip-dw-mshc: add description for rk3399 Jianqun Xu
2016-04-22  5:28 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add core dtsi file for RK3399 SoCs Jianqun Xu
2016-04-22  5:31 ` [PATCH 3/4] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add RK3399 evaluation board Jianqun Xu
2016-04-22  5:36 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] ARM64: dts: rockchip: add dts file for " Jianqun Xu

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=571DEF30.90604@rock-chips.com \
    --to=huangtao@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=davidriley@chromium.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=galak@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
    --cc=jay.xu@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=jwerner@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=smbarber@chromium.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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