09.06.2020 13:42, Marek Szyprowski пишет:
> Add a simple custom voltage regulator coupler for Exynos5800 SoCs, which
> require coupling between "vdd_arm" and "vdd_int" regulators. This coupler
> ensures that the voltage values don't go below the bootloader-selected
> operation point during the boot process until a the clients sets their
> constraints. It is achieved by assuming minimal voltage value equal to
> the current value if no constraints are set. This also ensures proper
> voltage balancing if any of the client driver is missing.
>
> The balancing code comes from regulator core.c with the
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> ---
> This patch is yet another attempt to fix the regulator coupling on
> Exynos5800/5422 SoCs. Here are links to the previous attempts and
> discussions:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20191008101709.qVNy8eijBi0LynOteWFMnTg4GUwKG599n6OyYoX1Abs@z/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/[email protected]/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/[email protected]/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/[email protected]/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>
> The problem is with "vdd_int" regulator coupled with "vdd_arm" on Odroid
> XU3/XU4 boards family. "vdd_arm" is handled by CPUfreq. "vdd_int" is
> handled by devfreq. CPUfreq initialized quite early during boot and it
> starts changing OPPs and "vdd_arm" value. Sometimes CPU activity during
> boot goes down and some low-frequency OPPs are selected, what in turn
> causes lowering "vdd_arm". This happens before devfreq applies its
> requirements on "vdd_int". Regulator balancing code reduces "vdd_arm"
> voltage value, what in turn causes lowering "vdd_int" value to the lowest
> possible value. This is much below the operation point of the wcore bus,
> which still runs at the highest frequency.
>
> The issue was hard to notice because in the most cases the board managed
> to boot properly, even when the regulator was set to lowest value allowed
> by the regulator constraints. However, it caused some random issues,
> which can be observed as "Unhandled prefetch abort" or low USB stability.
>
> Handling this case in the generic code has been rejected, so the only way
> to ensure the desired behavior on Exynos5800-based SoCs is to make a
> custom regulator coupler driver. I've tried hard to extract some common
> code to simplify the exynos-regulator-coupler driver as much as possible,
> but the difference between it and the generic code is so deep that this
> approach failed, so indead I simply copied and modified the balancing
> code.
>
> Best regards
> Marek Szyprowski
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 1 +
> drivers/soc/samsung/Kconfig | 3 +
> drivers/soc/samsung/Makefile | 1 +
> .../soc/samsung/exynos-regulator-coupler.c | 221 ++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 226 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-regulator-coupler.c
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> index 76838255b5fa..f185cd3d4c62 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> @@ -118,6 +118,7 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5800
> bool "Samsung EXYNOS5800"
> default y
> depends on SOC_EXYNOS5420
> + select EXYNOS_REGULATOR_COUPLER
>
> config EXYNOS_MCPM
> bool
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/samsung/Kconfig b/drivers/soc/samsung/Kconfig
> index 19c4d3f1437b..5d7819b52eed 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/samsung/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/soc/samsung/Kconfig
> @@ -43,4 +43,7 @@ config EXYNOS_PM_DOMAINS
> bool "Exynos PM domains" if COMPILE_TEST
> depends on PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS || COMPILE_TEST
>
> +config EXYNOS_REGULATOR_COUPLER
> + bool "Exynos SoC Regulator Coupler" if COMPILE_TEST
> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST
> endif
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/samsung/Makefile b/drivers/soc/samsung/Makefile
> index 31db65cb7aa3..93285faec416 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/samsung/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/soc/samsung/Makefile
> @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_PMU_ARM_DRIVERS) +=
> exynos3250-pmu.o exynos4-pmu.o \
> exynos5250-pmu.o exynos5420-pmu.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_PMU_ARM64_DRIVERS) += exynos-pm.o exynos5433-pmu.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_PM_DOMAINS) += pm_domains.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_REGULATOR_COUPLER) += exynos-regulator-coupler.o
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-regulator-coupler.c
> b/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-regulator-coupler.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..3cafc1738eb6
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-regulator-coupler.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2020 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
> + * http://www.samsung.com/
> + * Author: Marek Szyprowski <[email protected]>
> + *
> + * Simplified generic volatage coupler from regulator core.c
typo voltage -------------^
> + * The main difference is that it keeps current regulator voltage
> + * if consumers didn't apply their contraints yet.
typo conStraints ------------------------^
> + */
> +
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/coupler.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/driver.h>
> +#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
> +
> +static int regulator_get_optimal_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + int *current_uV,
> + int *min_uV, int *max_uV,
> + suspend_state_t state)
> +{
> + struct coupling_desc *c_desc = &rdev->coupling_desc;
> + struct regulator_dev **c_rdevs = c_desc->coupled_rdevs;
> + struct regulation_constraints *constraints = rdev->constraints;
> + int desired_min_uV = 0, desired_max_uV = INT_MAX;
> + int max_current_uV = 0, min_current_uV = INT_MAX;
> + int highest_min_uV = 0, target_uV, possible_uV;
> + int i, ret, max_spread, n_coupled = c_desc->n_coupled;
> + bool done;
> +
> + *current_uV = -1;
> +
> + /* Find highest min desired voltage */
> + for (i = 0; i < n_coupled; i++) {
> + int tmp_min = 0;
> + int tmp_max = INT_MAX;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held_once(&c_rdevs[i]->mutex.base);
> +
> + ret = regulator_check_consumers(c_rdevs[i],
> + &tmp_min,
> + &tmp_max, state);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (tmp_min == 0) {
> + ret = regulator_get_voltage_rdev(c_rdevs[i]);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + tmp_min = ret;
> + }
> +
> + /* apply constraints */
> + ret = regulator_check_voltage(c_rdevs[i], &tmp_min, &tmp_max);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + highest_min_uV = max(highest_min_uV, tmp_min);
> +
> + if (i == 0) {
> + desired_min_uV = tmp_min;
> + desired_max_uV = tmp_max;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + max_spread = constraints->max_spread[0];
> +
> + /*
> + * Let target_uV be equal to the desired one if possible.
> + * If not, set it to minimum voltage, allowed by other coupled
> + * regulators.
> + */
> + target_uV = max(desired_min_uV, highest_min_uV - max_spread);
> +
> + /*
> + * Find min and max voltages, which currently aren't violating
> + * max_spread.
> + */
> + for (i = 1; i < n_coupled; i++) {
> + int tmp_act;
> +
> + tmp_act = regulator_get_voltage_rdev(c_rdevs[i]);
> + if (tmp_act < 0)
> + return tmp_act;
> +
> + min_current_uV = min(tmp_act, min_current_uV);
> + max_current_uV = max(tmp_act, max_current_uV);
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Correct target voltage, so as it currently isn't
> + * violating max_spread
> + */
> + possible_uV = max(target_uV, max_current_uV - max_spread);
> + possible_uV = min(possible_uV, min_current_uV + max_spread);
> +
> + if (possible_uV > desired_max_uV)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + done = (possible_uV == target_uV);
> + desired_min_uV = possible_uV;
> +
> + /* Set current_uV if wasn't done earlier in the code and if necessary */
> + if (*current_uV == -1) {
> + ret = regulator_get_voltage_rdev(rdev);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + *current_uV = ret;
> + }
> +
> + *min_uV = desired_min_uV;
> + *max_uV = desired_max_uV;
> +
> + return done;
> +}
> +
> +static int exynos_coupler_balance_voltage(struct regulator_coupler *coupler,
> + struct regulator_dev *rdev,
> + suspend_state_t state)
> +{
> + struct regulator_dev **c_rdevs;
> + struct regulator_dev *best_rdev;
> + struct coupling_desc *c_desc = &rdev->coupling_desc;
> + int i, ret, n_coupled, best_min_uV, best_max_uV, best_c_rdev;
> + unsigned int delta, best_delta;
> + unsigned long c_rdev_done = 0;
> + bool best_c_rdev_done;
> +
> + c_rdevs = c_desc->coupled_rdevs;
> + n_coupled = c_desc->n_coupled;
> +
> + /*
> + * Find the best possible voltage change on each loop. Leave the loop
> + * if there isn't any possible change.
> + */
> + do {
> + best_c_rdev_done = false;
> + best_delta = 0;
> + best_min_uV = 0;
> + best_max_uV = 0;
> + best_c_rdev = 0;
> + best_rdev = NULL;
> +
> + /*
> + * Find highest difference between optimal voltage
> + * and current voltage.
> + */
> + for (i = 0; i < n_coupled; i++) {
> + /*
> + * optimal_uV is the best voltage that can be set for
> + * i-th regulator at the moment without violating
> + * max_spread constraint in order to balance
> + * the coupled voltages.
> + */
> + int optimal_uV = 0, optimal_max_uV = 0, current_uV = 0;
> +
> + if (test_bit(i, &c_rdev_done))
> + continue;
> +
> + ret = regulator_get_optimal_voltage(c_rdevs[i],
> + ¤t_uV,
> + &optimal_uV,
> + &optimal_max_uV,
> + state);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out;
> +
> + delta = abs(optimal_uV - current_uV);
> +
> + if (delta && best_delta <= delta) {
> + best_c_rdev_done = ret;
> + best_delta = delta;
> + best_rdev = c_rdevs[i];
> + best_min_uV = optimal_uV;
> + best_max_uV = optimal_max_uV;
> + best_c_rdev = i;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Nothing to change, return successfully */
> + if (!best_rdev) {
> + ret = 0;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + ret = regulator_set_voltage_rdev(best_rdev, best_min_uV,
> + best_max_uV, state);
> +
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out;
> +
> + if (best_c_rdev_done)
> + set_bit(best_c_rdev, &c_rdev_done);
> +
> + } while (n_coupled > 1);
> +
> +out:
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int exynos_coupler_attach(struct regulator_coupler *coupler,
> + struct regulator_dev *rdev)
> +{
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct regulator_coupler exynos_coupler = {
> + .attach_regulator = exynos_coupler_attach,
> + .balance_voltage = exynos_coupler_balance_voltage,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init exynos_coupler_init(void)
> +{
> + if (!of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos5800"))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return regulator_coupler_register(&exynos_coupler);
> +}
> +arch_initcall(exynos_coupler_init);
>
The code looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
