Thanks for reviewing it, Nishanth.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:00:26AM -0500, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> > +cpu@0 {
> > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a9";
> I am not sure how this works - would an example of OMAP4430, 60, 70
> help? they have completely different OPP entries.
>
Basically, patch #3 is a user of this and shows how this works.
> > + reg = <0>;
> > + next-level-cache = <&L2>;
> > + operating-points = <
> > + /* kHz uV en */
> > + 1200000 1275000 0
> > + 996000 1225000 1
> > + 792000 1100000 1
> > + 672000 1100000 0
> > + 396000 950000 1
> > + 198000 850000 1
>
> Just my 2cents, If we change en to be a flag:
> 0 - add, but disable
> 1 - add (enabled)
> we could extend this further if the definition is a flag, for example:
> 2 - add and disable IF any of notifier chain return failure
> 3- add but dont call notifier chain (e.g. OPPs that are present for All SoC)
>
> in addition, SoC might have additional properties associated with each
> OPP such a flag
> could be split up to mean lower 16 bits as OPP library flag and higher
> 16 bit to mean SoC custom flag
>
> Example - On certain SoC a specific type of power technique is
> supposed to be used per OPP, such a flag
> passed on via notifiers to SoC handler might be capable of
> centralizing the OPP information into the DT.
>
I do not follow on the idea of having the third tuple being a flag.
The binding is only meant to represent the aspects of operating-points,
while operating-points are all about frequency and voltage, nothing
else. No Linux implementation details should be encoded here. I'm
even a little unhappy about having enabling/availability in the third
tuple. If anyone complains about that, I will remove it from the
binding without a hesitation.
> > + >;
> > +};
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/opp.c b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> > index ac993ea..2d750f9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/opp.c
> > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
> > #include <linux/rculist.h>
> > #include <linux/rcupdate.h>
> > #include <linux/opp.h>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
> >
> > /*
> > * Internal data structure organization with the OPP layer library is as
> > @@ -674,3 +675,68 @@ struct srcu_notifier_head *opp_get_notifier(struct
> > device *dev)
> >
> > return &dev_opp->head;
> > }
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +/**
> > + * of_init_opp_table() - Initialize opp table from device tree
> > + * @dev: device pointer used to lookup device OPPs.
> > + *
> > + * Register the initial OPP table with the OPP library for given device.
> > + */
> > +int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > + const char *propname = "operating-points";
> > + const struct property *pp;
> > + u32 *opp;
> > + int ret, i, nr;
> > +
> > + pp = of_find_property(np, propname, NULL);
> > + if (!pp) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "%s: Unable to find property", __func__);
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > + }
> > +
> > + opp = kzalloc(pp->length, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!opp) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "%s: Unable to allocate array\n", __func__);
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + nr = pp->length / sizeof(u32);
> error warn if the pp->length is not multiple of u32?
The DT core ensures that any integer encoded there will an u32.
> we also expect
> later on to be a multiple of 3(f,v,disable
>
Yes, I thought about checking that, but I chose to simply ignore those
suspicious tuples at the end of the list. I will add the check for
that, since you commented here.
> > + ret = of_property_read_u32_array(np, propname, opp, nr);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "%s: Unable to read OPPs\n", __func__);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + nr /= 3;
> > + for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> > + /*
> > + * Each OPP is a set of tuples consisting of frequency,
> > + * voltage and availability like <freq-kHz vol-uV enable>.
> > + */
> > + u32 *val = opp + i * 3;
> > +
> > + val[0] *= 1000;
> > + ret = opp_add(dev, val[0], val[1]);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + dev_warn(dev, "%s: Failed to add OPP %d: %d\n",
> > + __func__, val[0], ret);
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!val[2]) {
> > + ret = opp_disable(dev, val[0]);
> Since we are updating the table out of context of the SoC users,
> consider what might happen if someone where to operate on the OPP
> after opp_add, but before opp_disable?
I would take this as another comment reminding me to remove the
enabling/availability tuple from the binding. Will do it in the
next version.
> instead of having the pain of adding an OPP and then disabling it,
> since the code will now move to core OPP
> library itself, wont it be better to hold dev_opp_list_lock and update
> the full table with a proper list walk - yes
> the current opp_add and opp_disable apis would need refactoring to be
> reusable. It will also save on
> synchronize_rcu calls on multiple iterations of the list.
>
>
> > + if (ret)
> > + dev_warn(dev, "%s: Failed to disable OPP
> > %d: %d\n",
> > + __func__, val[0], ret);
>
> umm... but we override the return with 0? OPP add failure might
> indicate the table is invalid/corrupted - or no memory.
> What is the point in populating a bad table up? having a singular
> function with direct access to internal structures
> might save us these un-necessary dilemma.
>
The return overriding only happens when opp_add or opp_disable call
fails on particular entry. That does not necessarily mean the whole
OPP table is completely invalid/corrupted. A warn message is enough,
IMO.
>
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = 0;
> > +out:
> > + kfree(opp);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > diff --git a/include/linux/opp.h b/include/linux/opp.h
> > index 2a4e5fa..fd165ad 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/opp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/opp.h
> > @@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ int opp_disable(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq);
> >
> > struct srcu_notifier_head *opp_get_notifier(struct device *dev);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> > +int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev);
>
> #else
> static inline int of_init_opp_table(struct device *dev) { return -EINVAL; }
> ?
>
Sounds good.
Regards,
Shawn
> > +#endif
> > +
> > #else
> > static inline unsigned long opp_get_voltage(struct opp *opp)
> > {
>
>
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
