Re: [PATCH RFT v1 1/3] drm/panfrost: enable devfreq based the "operating-points-v2" property
Hi Robin, On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:18 PM Robin Murphy wrote: > > On 07/01/2020 11:06 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > > Decouple the check to see whether we want to enable devfreq for the GPU > > from dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(). This is preparation work for adding > > back support for regulator control (which means we need to call > > dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() before dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(), which > > means having a check for "is devfreq enabled" that is not tied to > > dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() makes things easier). > > Hmm, what about cases like the SCMI DVFS protocol where the OPPs are > dynamically discovered rather than statically defined in DT? where can I find such an example (Amlogic SoCs use SCPI instead of SCMI, so I don't think that I have any board with SCMI support) or some documentation? (I could only find SCPI clock and CPU DVFS implementations, but no generic "OPPs for any device" implementation) Martin ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH RFT v1 1/3] drm/panfrost: enable devfreq based the "operating-points-v2" property
[ +Sudeep ] On 08/01/2020 12:38 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: Hi Robin, On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:18 PM Robin Murphy wrote: On 07/01/2020 11:06 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: Decouple the check to see whether we want to enable devfreq for the GPU from dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(). This is preparation work for adding back support for regulator control (which means we need to call dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() before dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(), which means having a check for "is devfreq enabled" that is not tied to dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() makes things easier). Hmm, what about cases like the SCMI DVFS protocol where the OPPs are dynamically discovered rather than statically defined in DT? where can I find such an example (Amlogic SoCs use SCPI instead of SCMI, so I don't think that I have any board with SCMI support) or some documentation? (I could only find SCPI clock and CPU DVFS implementations, but no generic "OPPs for any device" implementation) On closer inspection I think this applies to the SCPI DVFS protocol too[1]. AIUI the fact that neither is wired up to a devfreq driver yet is merely due to lack of demand and suitable systems to develop/test on so far - the panfrost devfreq code is only now looking like the first viable upstream use-case ;) Robin. [1] http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dui0922g/BABFEBCD.html ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: [PATCH RFT v1 1/3] drm/panfrost: enable devfreq based the "operating-points-v2" property
On 07/01/2020 11:06 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: Decouple the check to see whether we want to enable devfreq for the GPU from dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(). This is preparation work for adding back support for regulator control (which means we need to call dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() before dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(), which means having a check for "is devfreq enabled" that is not tied to dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() makes things easier). Hmm, what about cases like the SCMI DVFS protocol where the OPPs are dynamically discovered rather than statically defined in DT? Robin. Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl --- drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c index 413987038fbf..1471588763ce 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include #include "panfrost_device.h" @@ -79,10 +80,12 @@ int panfrost_devfreq_init(struct panfrost_device *pfdev) struct devfreq *devfreq; struct thermal_cooling_device *cooling; - ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(dev); - if (ret == -ENODEV) /* Optional, continue without devfreq */ + if (!device_property_present(dev, "operating-points-v2")) + /* Optional, continue without devfreq */ return 0; - else if (ret) + + ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(dev); + if (ret) return ret; panfrost_devfreq_reset(pfdev); ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
[PATCH RFT v1 1/3] drm/panfrost: enable devfreq based the "operating-points-v2" property
Decouple the check to see whether we want to enable devfreq for the GPU from dev_pm_opp_set_regulators(). This is preparation work for adding back support for regulator control (which means we need to call dev_pm_opp_set_regulators() before dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(), which means having a check for "is devfreq enabled" that is not tied to dev_pm_opp_of_add_table() makes things easier). Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl --- drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c | 9 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c index 413987038fbf..1471588763ce 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.c @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include #include "panfrost_device.h" @@ -79,10 +80,12 @@ int panfrost_devfreq_init(struct panfrost_device *pfdev) struct devfreq *devfreq; struct thermal_cooling_device *cooling; - ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(dev); - if (ret == -ENODEV) /* Optional, continue without devfreq */ + if (!device_property_present(dev, "operating-points-v2")) + /* Optional, continue without devfreq */ return 0; - else if (ret) + + ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(dev); + if (ret) return ret; panfrost_devfreq_reset(pfdev); -- 2.24.1 ___ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
