On Sat, 2013-03-16 at 01:36 +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 03/14/2013 01:40 AM, Danny Huang wrote:
> > Add speedo-based process identifictaion for Tegra114.
> >
> > Based on the work by:
> > Alex Frid <[email protected]>
>
> This code is surprisingly quite a bit simpler than the existing
> tegra30_speedo.c. Are you sure it's complete?
It's complete and working for now. But It may need update if we have
more sku/chip revision in the future.
> > 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?
>
There is no need of spare fuse access for Tegra114 for now.
> > 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?
That's currently all I have. I think we can add some more data in the
future when needed.
>
> > +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?
Yes, currently the 0x26c/0x270 value affects all sku of A01 chips.
> 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.
I'll put the BUILD_BUG_ON back and make them consistent with Tegra30 in
next version. Thanks.
>
> 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-tegra" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
