On 03/14/2013 01:40 AM, Danny Huang wrote:
> Add speedo-based process identifictaion for Tegra114.
>
> Based on the work by:
> Alex Frid <af...@nvidia.com>
This code is surprisingly quite a bit simpler than the existing
tegra30_speedo.c. Are you sure it's complete?
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/fuse.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/fuse.c
> @@ -137,6 +138,9 @@ void tegra_init_fuse(void)
> tegra_fuse_spare_bit = TEGRA30_FUSE_SPARE_BIT;
> tegra_init_speedo_data = &tegra30_init_speedo_data;
> break;
> + case TEGRA114:
> + tegra_init_speedo_data = &tegra114_init_speedo_data;
> + break;
Don't you need to set tegra_fuse_spare_bit there just like all the other
paths do?
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra114_speedo.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra114_speedo.c
> +#define CORE_PROCESS_CORNERS_NUM 2
> +#define CPU_PROCESS_CORNERS_NUM 2
> +
> +enum {
> + THRESHOLD_INDEX_0,
> + THRESHOLD_INDEX_1,
> + THRESHOLD_INDEX_COUNT,
> +};
> +
> +static const u32 core_process_speedos[THRESHOLD_INDEX_COUNT]
> + [CORE_PROCESS_CORNERS_NUM] = {
> + {1123, UINT_MAX},
> + {0, UINT_MAX},
> +};
> +
> +static const u32 cpu_process_speedos[THRESHOLD_INDEX_COUNT]
> + [CPU_PROCESS_CORNERS_NUM] = {
> + {1695, UINT_MAX},
> + {0, UINT_MAX},
> +};
Those enums/tables are a lot smaller than Tegra30. I'm surprised if we
end up making new chips simpler rather than more complex in this area.
Are those tables complete?
> +static void rev_sku_to_speedo_ids(int rev, int sku, int *threshold)
> +{
> + u32 tmp;
> +
> + switch (sku) {
> + case 0x00:
> + case 0x10:
> + case 0x05:
> + case 0x06:
> + tegra_cpu_speedo_id = 1;
> + tegra_soc_speedo_id = 0;
> + *threshold = THRESHOLD_INDEX_0;
> + break;
> +
> + case 0x03:
> + case 0x04:
> + tegra_cpu_speedo_id = 2;
> + tegra_soc_speedo_id = 1;
> + *threshold = THRESHOLD_INDEX_1;
> + break;
> +
> + default:
> + pr_err("Tegra114 Unknown SKU %d\n", sku);
> + tegra_cpu_speedo_id = 0;
> + tegra_soc_speedo_id = 0;
> + *threshold = THRESHOLD_INDEX_0;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (rev == TEGRA_REVISION_A01) {
> + tmp = tegra_fuse_readl(0x270) << 1;
> + tmp |= tegra_fuse_readl(0x26c);
> + if (!tmp)
> + tegra_cpu_speedo_id = 0;
> + }
> +}
That's also a lot simpler than Tegra30. Are all those SKUs really valid
for all chip revisions including A01 where the 0x270/0x26c fuses are clear?
If life really is this simple, then I should be happy:-) But I just want
to check that this code really is accurate.
> +void tegra114_init_speedo_data(void)
The Tegra30 code has a couple BUILD_BUG_ON() here to ensure that the
size of the {cpu,core}_process_speedos arrays match
THRESHOLD_INDEX_COUNT. It'd be good to be consistent here.
In general, the implementation of tegra114_init_speedo_data() is quite
different from that of the existing tegra30_init_speedo_data(). It'd be
nice if they were as similar as possible in structure so they could be
easily compared. Can you take a look at the two and see if any changes
are warranted in this patch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
