| Message ID | 2b87b162eabd1570ae2311e1ef8655acda72f678.1441972771.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Under Review, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 09/11/2015 07:01 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Regulators already have stable DT bindings, wherein the consumer (of > supplies) will have following for each regulator/supply. > > <name>-supply: <phandle to the regulator node>; > > Current OPP bindings extend above, by transforming it into a list of > phandles. But we missed the <name> string, which is used to identify the > regulator. > > And looking from regulators perspective, having two different ways of > specifying regulators doesn't seem like a step forward, it also means we > have to update every single device binding. And things will become > complex. > > Another way to support multiple regulators per device (in OPP V2 > bindings) is to leave regulator consumer bindings as is, and create a > 'supply-names' property in the opp-table node, which will contain a list > of strings. The names in this list shall match 'name' from the > '<name>-supply' strings present in the device node. > > The strings in this list also specify the order in which values must be > present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. > > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > index 0cb44dc21f97..8759bc4783ed 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ This describes the OPPs belonging to a device. This node can have following > - compatible: Allow OPPs to express their compatibility. It should be: > "operating-points-v2". > > +- supply-names: This is a required property, only if multiple supplies are > + available for the device. Otherwise it is optional. > + > + This list is used to pass names of all the device supplies. The order of names > + present here is important, as that should match the order in which values are > + present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. > + What if we have a 2nd device and supply rail? For example, what if the L2$ has a separate rail from the cores but is linked to the OPPs. > - OPP nodes: One or more OPP nodes describing voltage-current-frequency > combinations. Their name isn't significant but their phandle can be used to > reference an OPP. > @@ -97,8 +104,8 @@ properties. > Single entry is for target voltage and three entries are for <target min max> > voltages. > > - Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as > - regulators are specified in device's DT node. > + Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as their > + names are present in 'supply-names' property of the opp-table. > > - opp-microamp: The maximum current drawn by the device in microamperes > considering system specific parameters (such as transients, process, aging, > @@ -107,10 +114,12 @@ properties. > > Should only be set if opp-microvolt is set for the OPP. > > - Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as > - regulators are specified in device's DT node. If this property isn't required > - for few regulators, then this should be marked as zero for them. If it isn't > - required for any regulator, then this property need not be present. > + Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as their > + names are present in 'supply-names' property of the opp-table. > + > + If this property isn't required for few regulators, then this should be marked > + as zero for them. If it isn't required for any regulator, then this property > + need not be present. Remind me of when do we have multiple regulators for a cpu? The number of supplies should be defined by the cpu binding as function of how many supply rails a cpu has. > > - clock-latency-ns: Specifies the maximum possible transition latency (in > nanoseconds) for switching to this OPP from any other OPP. > @@ -369,13 +378,16 @@ Example 4: Handling multiple regulators > compatible = "arm,cortex-a7"; > ... > > - cpu-supply = <&cpu_supply0>, <&cpu_supply1>, <&cpu_supply2>; > + vcc0-supply = <&cpu_supply0>; > + vcc1-supply = <&cpu_supply1>; > + vcc2-supply = <&cpu_supply2>; This may just be an example, but a CA7 doesn't have 3 supply rails. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 14-09-15, 15:22, Rob Herring wrote: > What if we have a 2nd device and supply rail? For example, what if the > L2$ has a separate rail from the cores but is linked to the OPPs. Right, so that is the case with the Mediatek SoC as well, AFAIR. How do we plan to treat L2 devices? For example, in the mediatek cpufreq driver, they change L2's supplies together with CPUs. One way to get that done, with such very closely bound devices is to add two regulators: cpu-supply = ...; l2-supply = ...; And then a property in OPP table: supply-name = "cpu", "l2"; And maybe fix the order in which the supplies which be updated, based on the order in which entries are present in the above property. Any other way you suggest for doing that ? > Remind me of when do we have multiple regulators for a cpu? I haven't seen that yet, but its more like what I explained above. i.e. one for the CPU and other one for the L2 cache. But, these bindings do apply for other devices as well, where it should be very much possible.
Rob, On 15-09-15, 08:17, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 14-09-15, 15:22, Rob Herring wrote: > > What if we have a 2nd device and supply rail? For example, what if the > > L2$ has a separate rail from the cores but is linked to the OPPs. > > Right, so that is the case with the Mediatek SoC as well, AFAIR. How > do we plan to treat L2 devices? For example, in the mediatek cpufreq > driver, they change L2's supplies together with CPUs. > > One way to get that done, with such very closely bound devices is to > add two regulators: > > cpu-supply = ...; > l2-supply = ...; > > And then a property in OPP table: > > supply-name = "cpu", "l2"; > > And maybe fix the order in which the supplies which be updated, based > on the order in which entries are present in the above property. > > Any other way you suggest for doing that ? > > > Remind me of when do we have multiple regulators for a cpu? > > I haven't seen that yet, but its more like what I explained above. > i.e. one for the CPU and other one for the L2 cache. > > But, these bindings do apply for other devices as well, where it > should be very much possible. Not sure if you still have any objections to this patch?
On 09/14, Rob Herring wrote: > On 09/11/2015 07:01 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Regulators already have stable DT bindings, wherein the consumer (of > > supplies) will have following for each regulator/supply. > > > > <name>-supply: <phandle to the regulator node>; > > > > Current OPP bindings extend above, by transforming it into a list of > > phandles. But we missed the <name> string, which is used to identify the > > regulator. > > > > And looking from regulators perspective, having two different ways of > > specifying regulators doesn't seem like a step forward, it also means we > > have to update every single device binding. And things will become > > complex. > > > > Another way to support multiple regulators per device (in OPP V2 > > bindings) is to leave regulator consumer bindings as is, and create a > > 'supply-names' property in the opp-table node, which will contain a list > > of strings. The names in this list shall match 'name' from the > > '<name>-supply' strings present in the device node. > > > > The strings in this list also specify the order in which values must be > > present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. > > > > Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > > Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > index 0cb44dc21f97..8759bc4783ed 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt > > @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ This describes the OPPs belonging to a device. This node can have following > > - compatible: Allow OPPs to express their compatibility. It should be: > > "operating-points-v2". > > > > +- supply-names: This is a required property, only if multiple supplies are > > + available for the device. Otherwise it is optional. > > + > > + This list is used to pass names of all the device supplies. The order of names > > + present here is important, as that should match the order in which values are > > + present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. > > + > > What if we have a 2nd device and supply rail? For example, what if the > L2$ has a separate rail from the cores but is linked to the OPPs. I'm lost why we need this property at all. What happened to using opp-microvolt-0 = <1 2 3>; opp-microvolt-1 = <1>; opp-microvolt-2 = <3 4 5>; etc. That seems to avoid any problem with 3 vs. 1 element properties combined into one large array. Having supply-names seems too brittle and would tie us to a particular OPP user's decision to call supplies by some name. Also, I've seen devices that are split across two power domains. These devices aren't CPUs, but they are other devices including L2 caches. So we're going to need either multiple regulator support or multiple "power domain at a particular performance levels" support somehow.
On 15-10-15, 17:22, Stephen Boyd wrote: > I'm lost why we need this property at all. What happened to using > > opp-microvolt-0 = <1 2 3>; > opp-microvolt-1 = <1>; > opp-microvolt-2 = <3 4 5>; > etc. Perhaps you are confusing this with the bindings we came up for picking right voltage levels based on the cuts/version of the hardware we are running on. The problem that Lee Jones mentioned and that can be used in your case as well. > That seems to avoid any problem with 3 vs. 1 element properties > combined into one large array. That's not the problem I was trying to solve here. > Having supply-names seems too > brittle and would tie us to a particular OPP user's decision to > call supplies by some name. No. The name has to match the <name>-supply property present in the device's node, that's why we need this property :) > Also, I've seen devices that are split across two power domains. > These devices aren't CPUs, but they are other devices including > L2 caches. So we're going to need either multiple regulator > support or multiple "power domain at a particular performance > levels" support somehow. Right, that's a good example of why we need multi-regulator support :)
On 10/16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15-10-15, 17:22, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > I'm lost why we need this property at all. What happened to using > > > > opp-microvolt-0 = <1 2 3>; > > opp-microvolt-1 = <1>; > > opp-microvolt-2 = <3 4 5>; > > etc. > > Perhaps you are confusing this with the bindings we came up for > picking right voltage levels based on the cuts/version of the hardware > we are running on. The problem that Lee Jones mentioned and that can > be used in your case as well. Isn't that what this patch series is for? > > > That seems to avoid any problem with 3 vs. 1 element properties > > combined into one large array. > > That's not the problem I was trying to solve here. What problem are you trying to solve then? > > > Having supply-names seems too > > brittle and would tie us to a particular OPP user's decision to > > call supplies by some name. > > No. The name has to match the <name>-supply property present in the > device's node, that's why we need this property :) Why does it need to match? Sorry I'm totally lost now.
On 16-10-15, 12:16, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 10/16, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 15-10-15, 17:22, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > I'm lost why we need this property at all. What happened to using > > > > > > opp-microvolt-0 = <1 2 3>; > > > opp-microvolt-1 = <1>; > > > opp-microvolt-2 = <3 4 5>; > > > etc. > > > > Perhaps you are confusing this with the bindings we came up for > > picking right voltage levels based on the cuts/version of the hardware > > we are running on. The problem that Lee Jones mentioned and that can > > be used in your case as well. > > Isn't that what this patch series is for? Hehe, no. Okay here is the problem statement: We have two supplies for a device and the device node will have something like: name1-supply = <&supply1>; name2-supply = <&supply2>; And the OPP node needs to have voltages for both of them: opp-microvolt = <X1 Y1 Z1>, <X2 Y2 Z2>; Where XYZ(1) are for supply1 and XYZ(2) are for supply2. Now we need to identify the supplies for which the values are present here and their order as well. How do we do that? The way I am suggesting is to add a property in opp node which will keep "name1" and "name2" in it.
On 17-10-15, 09:40, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Hehe, no. > > Okay here is the problem statement: > > We have two supplies for a device and the device node will have > something like: > > name1-supply = <&supply1>; > name2-supply = <&supply2>; > > And the OPP node needs to have voltages for both of them: > > opp-microvolt = <X1 Y1 Z1>, <X2 Y2 Z2>; > > Where XYZ(1) are for supply1 and XYZ(2) are for supply2. > > Now we need to identify the supplies for which the values are present > here and their order as well. How do we do that? > > The way I am suggesting is to add a property in opp node which will > keep "name1" and "name2" in it. Any more comments? Acks ? I want to close this series :)
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 05:31:57PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > +- supply-names: This is a required property, only if multiple supplies are > + available for the device. Otherwise it is optional. > + > + This list is used to pass names of all the device supplies. The order of names > + present here is important, as that should match the order in which values are > + present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. If we were going to add something like this (which I'm really not that thrilled about due to their encouragement of bad practice as previously discussed) it seems wrong to add it at the level of a specific binding rather than as a general facility. I think I'm not entirely sold on this use case though, I'll follow up to a later message in this thread...
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 09:40:55AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Okay here is the problem statement: > We have two supplies for a device and the device node will have > something like: > name1-supply = <&supply1>; > name2-supply = <&supply2>; > And the OPP node needs to have voltages for both of them: > opp-microvolt = <X1 Y1 Z1>, <X2 Y2 Z2>; > Where XYZ(1) are for supply1 and XYZ(2) are for supply2. > Now we need to identify the supplies for which the values are present > here and their order as well. How do we do that? > The way I am suggesting is to add a property in opp node which will > keep "name1" and "name2" in it. When we start doing this we also start having to worry about things like the sequencing of the updates between the various supplies and end up in full on power sequencing (or at least baking some sequencing into the DT which will doubtless need extending at some point). I'm not sure that's a place we want to end up just yet, I think it's safer to just have a little bit of code in the kernel that glues things together in the cases where this is needed.
On 23-10-15, 01:39, Mark Brown wrote: > When we start doing this we also start having to worry about things like > the sequencing of the updates between the various supplies and end up in > full on power sequencing (or at least baking some sequencing into the DT > which will doubtless need extending at some point). Absolutely. > I'm not sure that's > a place we want to end up just yet, I think it's safer to just have a > little bit of code in the kernel that glues things together in the cases > where this is needed. So you are effectively saying that we shouldn't go ahead with multi regulator support in OPP library, right? I went ahead with it as it came as a requirement (specially from Qcom). To the problem of sequencing, maybe we can just support that for the simple case, where supplies will be programmed in the order in which they are present in the property I added in this patch. And not try to solve problem for the complex cases, if we feel it is getting ugly. @Stephen ?
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23-10-15, 01:39, Mark Brown wrote: > > I'm not sure that's > > a place we want to end up just yet, I think it's safer to just have a > > little bit of code in the kernel that glues things together in the cases > > where this is needed. > So you are effectively saying that we shouldn't go ahead with multi > regulator support in OPP library, right? Well, I think things like libraries for getting the data tables out of DT are fine but I'm not convinced that trying to avoid having any device specific code at all is sufficiently clear yet - as far as I know we're mostly looking at a fairly small subset of devices still and with things like sequencing in the mix it's a bit worrying to me to be putting it all into an ABI intended to be used with no knowledge of the platform.
On 10/28, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:49:17PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 23-10-15, 01:39, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > I'm not sure that's > > > a place we want to end up just yet, I think it's safer to just have a > > > little bit of code in the kernel that glues things together in the cases > > > where this is needed. > > > So you are effectively saying that we shouldn't go ahead with multi > > regulator support in OPP library, right? > > Well, I think things like libraries for getting the data tables out of > DT are fine but I'm not convinced that trying to avoid having any device > specific code at all is sufficiently clear yet - as far as I know we're > mostly looking at a fairly small subset of devices still and with things > like sequencing in the mix it's a bit worrying to me to be putting it > all into an ABI intended to be used with no knowledge of the platform. Agreed. Looking at the current oppv2 binding I'm confused how it even works. It shows cpu-supply = <&phandle1>, <&phandle2>, etc. which doesn't work with the regulator bindings design. It seems that Viresh figured that out when implementing support for multiple regulators, so the binding was changed to put names in the opp tables and then use that to get regulators in the opp core. Urgh. I think I understand the goal here though. The goal is to move all the clk_get()/regulator_get() and clock and regulator API interactions into the OPP framework so that we can say "go to OPP at index 4" from the cpufreq core and the OPP framework takes care of actually doing the transition. Given that doing such a transition could be very machine specific, we probably ought to make the OPP framework flexible enough to let us decide how to do that. Perhaps we need to expand on the compatible string in the opp node to have compatible = "vendor,cool-transition", "operating-points-v2"? Then we can plug in vendor specific drivers that handle the frequency/voltage transition and they'll know that the fourth column in the voltage entry corresponds to this particular device's foo-supply and in what order to change voltages. A generic driver could exist for the simple case of one regulator and one clock that matches on "operating-points-v2". Or we can avoid doing any clk_get()/regulator_get() stuff inside the OPP framework, and let OPP consumers tell the OPP framework about each clock and regulator it wants the framework to manage on the consumer's behalf. It could even tell the framework which regulator corresponds to which voltage column and in what order to change the voltages so that the OPP framework doesn't need to know these device specific details. Then the consumer can still say go to OPP level 4 and that all works without introducing some new DT ABI.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt index 0cb44dc21f97..8759bc4783ed 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt @@ -69,6 +69,13 @@ This describes the OPPs belonging to a device. This node can have following - compatible: Allow OPPs to express their compatibility. It should be: "operating-points-v2". +- supply-names: This is a required property, only if multiple supplies are + available for the device. Otherwise it is optional. + + This list is used to pass names of all the device supplies. The order of names + present here is important, as that should match the order in which values are + present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. + - OPP nodes: One or more OPP nodes describing voltage-current-frequency combinations. Their name isn't significant but their phandle can be used to reference an OPP. @@ -97,8 +104,8 @@ properties. Single entry is for target voltage and three entries are for <target min max> voltages. - Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as - regulators are specified in device's DT node. + Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as their + names are present in 'supply-names' property of the opp-table. - opp-microamp: The maximum current drawn by the device in microamperes considering system specific parameters (such as transients, process, aging, @@ -107,10 +114,12 @@ properties. Should only be set if opp-microvolt is set for the OPP. - Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as - regulators are specified in device's DT node. If this property isn't required - for few regulators, then this should be marked as zero for them. If it isn't - required for any regulator, then this property need not be present. + Entries for multiple regulators must be present in the same order as their + names are present in 'supply-names' property of the opp-table. + + If this property isn't required for few regulators, then this should be marked + as zero for them. If it isn't required for any regulator, then this property + need not be present. - clock-latency-ns: Specifies the maximum possible transition latency (in nanoseconds) for switching to this OPP from any other OPP. @@ -369,13 +378,16 @@ Example 4: Handling multiple regulators compatible = "arm,cortex-a7"; ... - cpu-supply = <&cpu_supply0>, <&cpu_supply1>, <&cpu_supply2>; + vcc0-supply = <&cpu_supply0>; + vcc1-supply = <&cpu_supply1>; + vcc2-supply = <&cpu_supply2>; operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>; }; }; cpu0_opp_table: opp_table0 { compatible = "operating-points-v2"; + supply-names = "vcc0", "vcc1", "vcc2"; opp-shared; opp00 {
Regulators already have stable DT bindings, wherein the consumer (of supplies) will have following for each regulator/supply. <name>-supply: <phandle to the regulator node>; Current OPP bindings extend above, by transforming it into a list of phandles. But we missed the <name> string, which is used to identify the regulator. And looking from regulators perspective, having two different ways of specifying regulators doesn't seem like a step forward, it also means we have to update every single device binding. And things will become complex. Another way to support multiple regulators per device (in OPP V2 bindings) is to leave regulator consumer bindings as is, and create a 'supply-names' property in the opp-table node, which will contain a list of strings. The names in this list shall match 'name' from the '<name>-supply' strings present in the device node. The strings in this list also specify the order in which values must be present in 'opp-microvolt' and 'opp-microamp' properties. Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/opp.txt | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)