[PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0
From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2014-06-27 00:06:13
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-pm, lkml
Subsystem:
cpu frequency scaling framework, the rest · Maintainers:
"Rafael J. Wysocki", Viresh Kumar, Linus Torvalds
On 06/26/14 03:52, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 26 June 2014 00:32, Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
I don't think this driver should be using regulator_get_optional() (Mark B. please correct me if I'm wrong). I doubt a supply is actually optional for CPUs, just some DTs aren't specifying them. In those cases, the regulator core will insert a dummy supply and the code will work without having to check for probe defer and error pointers.Hi Stephen, Thanks for your comments. Leaving the above one, I have tried to fix all you mentioned. And it surely looks much better now. I would like to wait for a day or two before sending V2, as people might be reviewing it and the above issue is still wide open.. But in case you wanna test it (completely changed I must say, but for good), its here: git://git.linaro.org/people/viresh.kumar/linux.git cpufreq/cpu0-krait-v2
I gave it a spin. It looks mostly good except for the infinite loop:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
index b7ee67c4d1c0..6744321ae33d 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c@@ -138,8 +138,10 @@ try_again: } /* Try with "cpu-supply" */ - if (reg == reg_cpu0) + if (reg == reg_cpu0) { + reg = reg_cpu; goto try_again; + } dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to get cpu%d regulator: %ld\n", cpu, PTR_ERR(cpu_reg));
and I think we just want reg_cpu to be "cpu", not "cpu-supply" because I think the regulator core adds in the "-supply" part already. After fixing that I can get cpufreq going. I'm currently working on populating the OPPs at runtime without relying on DT. So eventually I'll need this patch:
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
index b7ee67c4d1c0..6744321ae33d 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-cpu0.c@@ -239,11 +241,6 @@ static int cpu0_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) } ret = of_init_opp_table(cpu_dev); - if (ret) { - dev_err(cpu_dev, "failed to init OPP table: %d\n", ret); - goto out_put_node; - } - ret = dev_pm_opp_init_cpufreq_table(cpu_dev, &freq_table); if (ret) { dev_err(cpu_dev, "failed to init cpufreq table: %d\n", ret);
which I hope is ok. Finally, checking for equivalent pointers from clk_get() will work now, but it isn't future-proof if/when the clock framework starts returning dynamically allocated clock pointers for each clk_get() invocation. Maybe we need a function in the common clock framework that tells us if the clocks are the same either via DT or by taking two clock pointers? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation