On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 06:38, Santosh Shilimkar
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On OMAP SMP configuartion, both processors share the voltage
> and clock. So both CPUs needs to be scaled together and hence
> needs software co-ordination.
>
> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kevin Hilman <[email protected]>
> cc: Vishwanath BS <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c | 73
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
[...]
> rate = clk_get_rate(mpu_clk) / 1000;
> @@ -74,9 +76,13 @@ static int omap_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
[...]
> - cpufreq_notify_transition(&freqs, CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + /*
> + * Note that loops_per_jiffy is not updated on SMP systems in
> + * cpufreq driver. So, update the per-CPU loops_per_jiffy value
> + * on frequency transition. We need to update all dependent CPUs.
> + */
> + for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus)
> + per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy =
> + cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy,
> + freqs.old, freqs.new);
We have an issue here - arch/arm/lib/delay.S uses the generic
loops_per_jiffy which is not updated when smp (OMAP4) is active, as a
result loops_per_jiffy contains the value which was updated. with a
trace added as follows:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
index 0105c8d..8bad854 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
@@ -137,10 +137,14 @@ set_freq:
* cpufreq driver. So, update the per-CPU loops_per_jiffy value
* on frequency transition. We need to update all dependent CPUs.
*/
- for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus)
+ for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus) {
per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy =
cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy,
freqs.old, freqs.new);
+ pr_err("%s: loops_per_jiffy=%lu cpu%d.loops_per_jiffy=%d\n",
+ __func__, loops_per_jiffy, i,
+ per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy);
+ }
#endif
Testing:600000 freq
[ 30.319885] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7643136 cpu0.loops_per_jiffy=4666514
[ 30.327758] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7643136 cpu1.loops_per_jiffy=4549484
testing:800000
[ 31.419616] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7643136 cpu0.loops_per_jiffy=6222018
[ 31.427612] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7643136 cpu1.loops_per_jiffy=6065978
testing:1008000
[ 32.532012] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7643136 cpu0.loops_per_jiffy=7839742
[ 32.540252] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7643136 cpu1.loops_per_jiffy=7643132
Luckily my bootloader was booting up at 1GHz, but for folks booting at
OPP100, well.. at 1GHz, the mdelays and udelays are going to be wrong
badly.
With a quick patch as follows (by Amarnath/Saquib), the output is:
testing:600000
[ 27.499603] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=4666514 cpu0.loops_per_jiffy=4666514
[ 27.507507] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=4666514 cpu1.loops_per_jiffy=4549484
testing:800000
[ 28.617553] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=6222018 cpu0.loops_per_jiffy=6222018
[ 28.625518] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=6222018 cpu1.loops_per_jiffy=6065978
testing:1008000
[ 29.724578] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7839742 cpu0.loops_per_jiffy=7839742
[ 29.732818] omap_target: loops_per_jiffy=7839742 cpu1.loops_per_jiffy=7643132
patch:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
index 0105c8d..58a968d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap2plus-cpufreq.c
@@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ static int omap_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
int i, ret = 0;
struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
struct device *mpu_dev = omap2_get_mpuss_device();
+ unsigned int jiffy_loop_cpu = 0;
/* Changes not allowed until all CPUs are online */
if (is_smp() && (num_online_cpus() < NR_CPUS))
@@ -137,10 +138,14 @@ set_freq:
* cpufreq driver. So, update the per-CPU loops_per_jiffy value
* on frequency transition. We need to update all dependent CPUs.
*/
- for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus)
+ for_each_cpu(i, policy->cpus) {
per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy =
cpufreq_scale(per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy,
freqs.old, freqs.new);
+ if (per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy > jiffy_loop_cpu)
+ jiffy_loop_cpu = per_cpu(cpu_data, i).loops_per_jiffy;
+ }
+ loops_per_jiffy = jiffy_loop_cpu;
#endif
/* notifiers */
Question: what would be the best solution for this? is a solution
isolated to OMAP good enough?
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
