diff mbox series

[1/2] cpufreq: dt-platdev: Automatically create cpufreq device with OPP v2

Message ID e93c74a19ebf6d7ee687ef8b71b3150a96527f7c.1502861444.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org
State Superseded
Headers show
Series [1/2] cpufreq: dt-platdev: Automatically create cpufreq device with OPP v2 | expand

Commit Message

Viresh Kumar Aug. 16, 2017, 5:37 a.m. UTC 
The initial idea of creating the cpufreq-dt-platdev.c file was to keep a
list of platforms that use the "operating-points" (V1) bindings and
create cpufreq device for them only, as we weren't sure which platforms
would want the device to get created automatically as some had their own
cpufreq drivers as well, or wanted to initialize cpufreq after doing
some stuff from platform code.

But that wasn't the case with platforms using "operating-points-v2"
property. We wanted the device to get created automatically without the
need of adding them to the whitelist. Though, we will still have some
exceptions where we don't want to create the device automatically.

Rename the earlier platform list as *whitelist* and create a new
*blacklist* as well.

The cpufreq-dt device will get created if:
- The platform is there in the whitelist OR
- The platform has "operating-points-v2" property in CPU0's DT node and
  isn't part of the blacklist .

Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

---
 drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

-- 
2.7.4

Comments

Geert Uytterhoeven Aug. 16, 2017, 6:51 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Viresh,

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> Drop few ARM (32 and 64 bit) platforms from the whitelist which always

> use "operating-points-v2" property from their DT. They should continue

> to work after this patch.

>

> Tested on Hikey platform (only the "hisilicon,hi6220" entry).

>

> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

> ---

>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 11 -----------

>  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

>

> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> index 061b468512a2..45f2ec3b7f7a 100644

> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31s", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a23", },

> -       { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3", },


I think "renesas,r8a7795" can be removed again, too.
Simon?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
Chen-Yu Tsai Aug. 16, 2017, 8:53 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> Drop few ARM (32 and 64 bit) platforms from the whitelist which always

> use "operating-points-v2" property from their DT. They should continue

> to work after this patch.

>

> Tested on Hikey platform (only the "hisilicon,hi6220" entry).

>

> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

> ---

>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 11 -----------

>  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

>

> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> index 061b468512a2..45f2ec3b7f7a 100644

> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31s", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a23", },

> -       { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3", },

>


Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>


In fact, we can drop all the sun8i entries. Of them, only sun8i-a33 has
cpufreq implemented. All the other ones are missing thermal sensor support,
and no OPP tables have been added yet.

ChenYu
Viresh Kumar Aug. 16, 2017, 11:23 a.m. UTC | #3 
On 16-08-17, 16:49, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> > The initial idea of creating the cpufreq-dt-platdev.c file was to keep a

> > list of platforms that use the "operating-points" (V1) bindings and

> > create cpufreq device for them only, as we weren't sure which platforms

> > would want the device to get created automatically as some had their own

> > cpufreq drivers as well, or wanted to initialize cpufreq after doing

> > some stuff from platform code.

> >

> > But that wasn't the case with platforms using "operating-points-v2"

> > property. We wanted the device to get created automatically without the

> > need of adding them to the whitelist. Though, we will still have some

> > exceptions where we don't want to create the device automatically.

> >

> > Rename the earlier platform list as *whitelist* and create a new

> > *blacklist* as well.

> >

> > The cpufreq-dt device will get created if:

> > - The platform is there in the whitelist OR

> > - The platform has "operating-points-v2" property in CPU0's DT node and

> >   isn't part of the blacklist .

> >

> > Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

> 

> Does this mean "cpufreq: dt: Add support for some new Allwinner SoCs",

> or any other patch adding new SoCs to the list, isn't needed anymore?


For SoCs using OPP-v2, yeah, we don't need any more patches in future.

-- 
viresh
Viresh Kumar Aug. 16, 2017, 11:24 a.m. UTC | #4 
On 16-08-17, 16:53, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> > Drop few ARM (32 and 64 bit) platforms from the whitelist which always

> > use "operating-points-v2" property from their DT. They should continue

> > to work after this patch.

> >

> > Tested on Hikey platform (only the "hisilicon,hi6220" entry).

> >

> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

> > ---

> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 11 -----------

> >  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

> >

> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> > index 061b468512a2..45f2ec3b7f7a 100644

> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> > @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31s", },

> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20", },

> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a23", },

> > -       { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33", },

> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t", },

> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3", },

> >

> 

> Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>

> 

> In fact, we can drop all the sun8i entries. Of them, only sun8i-a33 has

> cpufreq implemented. All the other ones are missing thermal sensor support,

> and no OPP tables have been added yet.


Then, why did you guys add all those SoCs there ? :)

-- 
viresh
Viresh Kumar Aug. 17, 2017, 8:40 a.m. UTC | #5 
On 17-08-17, 09:53, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 08:51:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> > Hi Viresh,

> > 

> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

> > > Drop few ARM (32 and 64 bit) platforms from the whitelist which always

> > > use "operating-points-v2" property from their DT. They should continue

> > > to work after this patch.

> > >

> > > Tested on Hikey platform (only the "hisilicon,hi6220" entry).

> > >

> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

> > > ---

> > >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 11 -----------

> > >  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

> > >

> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> > > index 061b468512a2..45f2ec3b7f7a 100644

> > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> > > @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

> > >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31s", },

> > >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20", },

> > >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a23", },

> > > -       { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33", },

> > >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t", },

> > >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3", },

> > 

> > I think "renesas,r8a7795" can be removed again, too.

> > Simon?

> 

> I assume you are referring to "[PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: dt-platdev:

> Automatically create cpufreq device with OPP v2" (which you kindly

> forwarded me). If so, yes, that seems likely. I'll do some testing to

> confirm this.


Yeah, and he probably meant that renesas bits can be removed and
included in this patch 2/2 only.

-- 
viresh
Chen-Yu Tsai Aug. 17, 2017, 5 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 16-08-17, 16:53, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:

>> > Drop few ARM (32 and 64 bit) platforms from the whitelist which always

>> > use "operating-points-v2" property from their DT. They should continue

>> > to work after this patch.

>> >

>> > Tested on Hikey platform (only the "hisilicon,hi6220" entry).

>> >

>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

>> > ---

>> >  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 11 -----------

>> >  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

>> >

>> > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

>> > index 061b468512a2..45f2ec3b7f7a 100644

>> > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

>> > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

>> > @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31s", },

>> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20", },

>> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a23", },

>> > -       { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33", },

>> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t", },

>> >         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3", },

>> >

>>

>> Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>

>>

>> In fact, we can drop all the sun8i entries. Of them, only sun8i-a33 has

>> cpufreq implemented. All the other ones are missing thermal sensor support,

>> and no OPP tables have been added yet.

>

> Then, why did you guys add all those SoCs there ? :)


The idea was to add all the SoCs to the cpufreq driver first, and sort out
the thermal sensor and device tree parts later. Obviously this progressed
very slowly.

ChenYu
Simon Horman Aug. 21, 2017, 1:17 p.m. UTC | #7 
On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:07:27AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> The initial idea of creating the cpufreq-dt-platdev.c file was to keep a

> list of platforms that use the "operating-points" (V1) bindings and

> create cpufreq device for them only, as we weren't sure which platforms

> would want the device to get created automatically as some had their own

> cpufreq drivers as well, or wanted to initialize cpufreq after doing

> some stuff from platform code.

> 

> But that wasn't the case with platforms using "operating-points-v2"

> property. We wanted the device to get created automatically without the

> need of adding them to the whitelist. Though, we will still have some

> exceptions where we don't want to create the device automatically.

> 

> Rename the earlier platform list as *whitelist* and create a new

> *blacklist* as well.

> 

> The cpufreq-dt device will get created if:

> - The platform is there in the whitelist OR

> - The platform has "operating-points-v2" property in CPU0's DT node and

>   isn't part of the blacklist .

> 

> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>


I have exercised this on the r8a7795 and r8a7795 with the following
reverted:

* 034def597bb7 ("cpufreq: rcar: Add support for R8A7795 SoC")
* bea2ebca6b91 ("cpufreq: dt: Add r8a7796 support to to use generic
cpufreq driver")

Tested-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>
Masahiro Yamada Aug. 23, 2017, 3:33 a.m. UTC | #8 
Hi Viresh,


2017-08-16 14:37 GMT+09:00 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>:
> Drop few ARM (32 and 64 bit) platforms from the whitelist which always

> use "operating-points-v2" property from their DT. They should continue

> to work after this patch.

>

> Tested on Hikey platform (only the "hisilicon,hi6220" entry).

>

> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

> ---

>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c | 11 -----------

>  1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

>

> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> index 061b468512a2..45f2ec3b7f7a 100644

> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c

> @@ -27,7 +27,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31s", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun7i-a20", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a23", },

> -       { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a33", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-a83t", },

>         { .compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3", },

>

> @@ -37,7 +36,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>         { .compatible = "arm,integrator-cp", },

>

>         { .compatible = "hisilicon,hi3660", },

> -       { .compatible = "hisilicon,hi6220", },

>

>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx27", },

>         { .compatible = "fsl,imx51", },

> @@ -51,11 +49,8 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>         { .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250", },

>         { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4210", },

>         { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4212", },

> -       { .compatible = "samsung,exynos4412", },

>         { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5250", },

>  #ifndef CONFIG_BL_SWITCHER

> -       { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420", },

> -       { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5433", },

>         { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5800", },

>  #endif

>

> @@ -87,11 +82,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {

>         { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3368", },

>         { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3399", },

>

> -       { .compatible = "socionext,uniphier-pro5", },

> -       { .compatible = "socionext,uniphier-pxs2", },

>         { .compatible = "socionext,uniphier-ld6b", },

> -       { .compatible = "socionext,uniphier-ld11", },

> -       { .compatible = "socionext,uniphier-ld20", },



Please remove "socionext,uniphier-ld6b" as well.

It includes the same silicon die
of "socionext,uniphier-pxs2".



-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
Masahiro Yamada Aug. 23, 2017, 3:48 a.m. UTC | #9 
2017-08-21 22:17 GMT+09:00 Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:07:27AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:

>> The initial idea of creating the cpufreq-dt-platdev.c file was to keep a

>> list of platforms that use the "operating-points" (V1) bindings and

>> create cpufreq device for them only, as we weren't sure which platforms

>> would want the device to get created automatically as some had their own

>> cpufreq drivers as well, or wanted to initialize cpufreq after doing

>> some stuff from platform code.

>>

>> But that wasn't the case with platforms using "operating-points-v2"

>> property. We wanted the device to get created automatically without the

>> need of adding them to the whitelist. Though, we will still have some

>> exceptions where we don't want to create the device automatically.

>>

>> Rename the earlier platform list as *whitelist* and create a new

>> *blacklist* as well.

>>

>> The cpufreq-dt device will get created if:

>> - The platform is there in the whitelist OR

>> - The platform has "operating-points-v2" property in CPU0's DT node and

>>   isn't part of the blacklist .

>>

>> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>

>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>

>

> I have exercised this on the r8a7795 and r8a7795 with the following

> reverted:

>

> * 034def597bb7 ("cpufreq: rcar: Add support for R8A7795 SoC")

> * bea2ebca6b91 ("cpufreq: dt: Add r8a7796 support to to use generic

> cpufreq driver")

>

> Tested-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au>




Reviewed-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>





-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
index bcee384b3251..061b468512a2 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq-dt-platdev.c
@@ -9,11 +9,16 @@ 
 
 #include <linux/err.h>
 #include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_device.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 
 #include "cpufreq-dt.h"
 
-static const struct of_device_id machines[] __initconst = {
+/*
+ * Machines for which the cpufreq device is *always* created, mostly used for
+ * platforms using "operating-points" (V1) property.
+ */
+static const struct of_device_id whitelist[] __initconst = {
 	{ .compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-a10", },
 	{ .compatible = "allwinner,sun5i-a10s", },
 	{ .compatible = "allwinner,sun5i-a13", },
@@ -101,21 +106,51 @@  static const struct of_device_id machines[] __initconst = {
 	{ }
 };
 
+/*
+ * Machines for which the cpufreq device is *not* created, mostly used for
+ * platforms using "operating-points-v2" property.
+ */
+static const struct of_device_id blacklist[] __initconst = {
+	{ }
+};
+
+static bool __init cpu0_node_has_opp_v2_prop(void)
+{
+	struct device_node *np = of_cpu_device_node_get(0);
+	bool ret = false;
+
+	if (of_get_property(np, "operating-points-v2", NULL))
+		ret = true;
+
+	of_node_put(np);
+	return ret;
+}
+
 static int __init cpufreq_dt_platdev_init(void)
 {
 	struct device_node *np = of_find_node_by_path("/");
 	const struct of_device_id *match;
+	const void *data = NULL;
 
 	if (!np)
 		return -ENODEV;
 
-	match = of_match_node(machines, np);
+	match = of_match_node(whitelist, np);
+	if (match) {
+		data = match->data;
+		goto create_pdev;
+	}
+
+	if (cpu0_node_has_opp_v2_prop() && !of_match_node(blacklist, np))
+		goto create_pdev;
+
 	of_node_put(np);
-	if (!match)
-		return -ENODEV;
+	return -ENODEV;
 
+create_pdev:
+	of_node_put(np);
 	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(platform_device_register_data(NULL, "cpufreq-dt",
-			       -1, match->data,
+			       -1, data,
 			       sizeof(struct cpufreq_dt_platform_data)));
 }
 device_initcall(cpufreq_dt_platdev_init);