Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: topology: Use a clock if possible to get the CPU frequency

On 4 July 2014 10:02, Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:51:27AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

On 3 July 2014 09:10, Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:06:16PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

On 30 June 2014 16:58, Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:48:35PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

On 30 June 2014 16:01, Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:27:21PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

-             rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len);
-             if (!rate || len != 4) {
-                     pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n",
-                             cn->full_name);
+             clk = of_clk_get(cn, 0);
+             if (!IS_ERR(clk))
+                     rate = clk_get_rate(clk);

We need the max frequency as it will be used to weight the different
CPUs capacity. How do you ensure that the current clock rate is the
max one ?

Hmm, the clock-frequency attribute in the ePAPR is defined at the
current CPU frequency, not the max one.

What means current frequency in device tree when DVFS is involved ?

The ePAPR states that clock-frequency is supposed to be "the current
clock speed of the CPU in Hertz". It's exactly what my patch add.

Now, you're right, DVFS would be an issue here with clock-frequency,
but this patch actually makes it easier to deal with, since you only
get a reference to a clock, and you can get its rate at any given
time.

and what about using clk_round_rate(clk, ULONG_MAX) ?

Well, the clock itself might generate a frequency higher that what the
CPU can run at, so I'm not sure it's a valid assumption.

yes, you're right

quoted

quoted

We will not be dependent of when we parse DT

You lost me there. clk_round_rate and clk_get_rate are available at
the same time in the boot process, aren't they?

yes, but  clk_round_rate(clk, ULONG_MAX) will return the max frequency
and not the current one. But as you mentioned, it doesn't ensure that
it's a possible frequency for the core

Is this an Acked-by ?

 I still think that using the current rate with clk_get_rate is not a
good solution.

Well, it's just as good as using clock-frequency, really. If you want
the CPU max frequency, it's not the right property (plus, since the
changed behaviour is not documented in Linux anywhere, the only
reference we have is the ePAPR on this).

quoted

Could you give us more details about why you nee to use current clock ?

Honestly, I just want to remove that big warning at boot on the
A7-based SoCs we have :)

so Why not changing the log message ? It's clearly not an error to not
have clock-frequency

quoted

AFAICT, your patch only makes sense for HMP system which don't have
DVFS, is it your case ?

Nope, it's just plain simple SMP.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html