[v6,00/26] Add perf support to the rockchip-dfi driver

This contains only small changes to the last version, but in one case
a really important one: As Sebastian noted there is sometimes wrong data
reported. This is fixed in this version.

Other than that there are only small changes, see below in the changelog.

Overall I think this series this series is ready for primetime now.

Sascha

Changes since v5:
- Add missing initialization of &dfi->last_perf_count which resulted
  in wrong data sometimes
- Drop interrupt-names property from binding
- Add patch to add rockchip,rk3588-pmugrf to dt-bindings
- Add more reviewed-by tags

Changes since v4:
- Add device tree changes for RK3588
- Use seqlock to protect perf counter values from hrtimer
- Unconditionally enable DFI when perf is enabled
- Bring back changes to dts/binding patches that were lost in v4

Changes since v3:
- Add RK3588 support

Changes since v2:
- Fix broken reference to binding
- Add Reviewed-by from Rob

Changes since v1:
- Fix example to actually match the binding and fix the warnings resulted thereof
- Make addition of rockchip,rk3568-dfi an extra patch

Sascha Hauer (26):
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Make pmu regmap mandatory
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Embed desc into private data struct
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: use consistent name for private data
    struct
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Add SoC specific init function
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: dfi store raw values in counter struct
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Use free running counter
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: introduce channel mask
  PM / devfreq: rk3399_dmc,dfi: generalize DDRTYPE defines
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Clean up DDR type register defines
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Add RK3568 support
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Handle LPDDR2 correctly
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Handle LPDDR4X
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Pass private data struct to internal
    functions
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Prepare for multiple users
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: give variable a better name
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: Add perf support
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: make register stride SoC specific
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: account for multiple DDRMON_CTRL registers
  PM / devfreq: rockchip-dfi: add support for RK3588
  dt-bindings: devfreq: event: convert Rockchip DFI binding to yaml
  dt-bindings: devfreq: event: rockchip,dfi: Add rk3568 support
  dt-bindings: devfreq: event: rockchip,dfi: Add rk3588 support
  dt-bindings: soc: rockchip: grf: add rockchip,rk3588-pmugrf
  arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3399: Enable DFI
  arm64: dts: rockchip: rk356x: Add DFI
  arm64: dts: rockchip: rk3588s: Add DFI

 .../bindings/devfreq/event/rockchip,dfi.yaml  |  74 ++
 .../bindings/devfreq/event/rockchip-dfi.txt   |  18 -
 .../rockchip,rk3399-dmc.yaml                  |   2 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/soc/rockchip/grf.yaml |   1 +
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi      |   1 -
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk356x.dtsi      |   7 +
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi     |  16 +
 drivers/devfreq/event/rockchip-dfi.c          | 799 +++++++++++++++---
 drivers/devfreq/rk3399_dmc.c                  |  10 +-
 include/soc/rockchip/rk3399_grf.h             |   9 +-
 include/soc/rockchip/rk3568_grf.h             |  13 +
 include/soc/rockchip/rk3588_grf.h             |  18 +
 include/soc/rockchip/rockchip_grf.h           |  18 +
 13 files changed, 848 insertions(+), 138 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/event/rockchip,dfi.yaml
 delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/event/rockchip-dfi.txt
 create mode 100644 include/soc/rockchip/rk3568_grf.h
 create mode 100644 include/soc/rockchip/rk3588_grf.h
 create mode 100644 include/soc/rockchip/rockchip_grf.h

Hello Sascha,

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:22 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> - Add more reviewed-by tags

Can you explain how the Tested-Bys are handled, I don't see any patch
with those tags, not Sebastians, nor mine. Is the testing useful ? Should I
retest the new patchset ?

Regards

Hi Vincent,

On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 01:50:42PM +0000, Vincent Legoll wrote:
> Hello Sascha,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 6:22 AM Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > - Add more reviewed-by tags
> 
> Can you explain how the Tested-Bys are handled, I don't see any patch
> with those tags, not Sebastians, nor mine. Is the testing useful ? Should I
> retest the new patchset ?

I really appreciate that you are testing this series. However, changes
to the series often invlidate the testing, that's why I haven't added
your tested-by tags when sending a new series. The tested-by tags would
have to be collected from the person finally applying the series.

Regards,
  Sascha

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 11:20:09AM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>    Hi Sascha,
>    The Cc of this series doesn't contain me so that I didn't know thise
>    series.
>    Anyway, I'll review them today.

I wasn't aware that I forgot to Cc you, sorry for that. Thanks for your
feedback, I'll address the comments soon and send an updated series.

Thanks
 Sascha