On 2/28/2017 4:18 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 01/30, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> index 35eee68..9c12a36 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c
>> @@ -485,35 +497,99 @@ static int q6v5_rmb_mba_wait(struct q6v5 *qproc, u32 status, int ms)
>>
>> static int q6v5proc_reset(struct q6v5 *qproc)
>> {
>> - u32 val;
>> + u64 val;
> Why u64? There isn't any readq/writeq usage here.
OK
>
>> int ret;
>> + int i;
>>
> [...]
>> + if (qproc->version == MSS_MSM8996) {
>> + /* Override the ACC value if required */
>> + writel(QDSP6SS_ACC_OVERRIDE_VAL,
>> + qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_STRAP_ACC);
>> +
>> + /* Assert resets, stop core */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_RESET_REG);
>> + val |= (Q6SS_CORE_ARES | Q6SS_BUS_ARES_ENABLE | Q6SS_STOP_CORE);
> Useless parenthesis.
ok
>
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_RESET_REG);
>> +
>> + /* BHS require xo cbcr to be enabled */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_XO_CBCR);
>> + val |= 0x1;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_XO_CBCR);
>>
>> + /* Read CLKOFF bit to go low indicating CLK is enabled */
>> + ret = readl_poll_timeout(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_XO_CBCR,
>> + val, !(val & BIT(31)), 1, HALT_CHECK_MAX_LOOPS);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(qproc->dev,
>> + "xo cbcr enabling timed out (rc:%d)\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> + /* Enable power block headswitch and wait for it to stabilize */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val |= QDSP6v56_BHS_ON;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + udelay(1);
>> +
>> + /* Put LDO in bypass mode */
>> + val |= QDSP6v56_LDO_BYP;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> +
>> + /* Deassert QDSP6 compiler memory clamp */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val &= ~QDSP6v56_CLAMP_QMC_MEM;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> +
>> + /* Deassert memory peripheral sleep and L2 memory standby */
>> + val |= (Q6SS_L2DATA_STBY_N | Q6SS_SLP_RET_N);
> Useless parenthesis.
ok
>
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> +
>> + /* Turn on L1, L2, ETB and JU memories 1 at a time */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_MEM_PWR_CTL);
>> + for (i = 19; i >= 0; i--) {
>> + val |= BIT(i);
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base +
>> + QDSP6SS_MEM_PWR_CTL);
>> + /*
>> + * Read back value to ensure the write is done then
>> + * wait for 1us for both memory peripheral and data
>> + * array to turn on.
>> + */
>> + val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_MEM_PWR_CTL);
>> + udelay(1);
>> + }
>> + /* Remove word line clamp */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val &= ~QDSP6v56_CLAMP_WL;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + } else {
>> + /* Assert resets, stop core */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_RESET_REG);
>> + val |= (Q6SS_CORE_ARES | Q6SS_BUS_ARES_ENABLE | Q6SS_STOP_CORE);
> Useless parenthesis.
ok
>
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_RESET_REG);
>> +
>> + /* Enable power block headswitch and wait for it to stabilize */
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val |= QDSS_BHS_ON | QDSS_LDO_BYP;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val |= readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + udelay(1);
>> @@ -849,6 +925,7 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> {
>> struct q6v5 *qproc = (struct q6v5 *)rproc->priv;
>> int ret;
>> + int val;
> u32 instead of int?
ok
>
>>
>> qproc->running = false;
>>
>> @@ -866,6 +943,15 @@ static int q6v5_stop(struct rproc *rproc)
>> q6v5proc_halt_axi_port(qproc, qproc->halt_map, qproc->halt_modem);
>> q6v5proc_halt_axi_port(qproc, qproc->halt_map, qproc->halt_nc);
>>
>> + if (qproc->version == MSS_MSM8996) {
>> + /*
>> + * To avoid high MX current during LPASS/MSS restart.
>> + */
> Three lines could be one line comment instead.
ok.
>
>> + val = readl(qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + val |= Q6SS_CLAMP_IO | QDSP6v56_CLAMP_WL |
>> + QDSP6v56_CLAMP_QMC_MEM;
>> + writel(val, qproc->reg_base + QDSP6SS_PWR_CTL_REG);
>> + }
>> reset_control_assert(qproc->mss_restart);
>> q6v5_clk_disable(qproc->dev, qproc->active_clks,
>> qproc->active_clk_count);
>> @@ -1213,6 +1299,47 @@ static int q6v5_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static const struct rproc_hexagon_res msm8996_mss = {
>> + .hexagon_mba_image = "mba.mbn",
>> + .proxy_supply = (struct qcom_mss_reg_res[]) {
>> + {
>> + .supply = "vdd_mx",
>> + .uV = 6,
>> + },
>> + {
>> + .supply = "vdd_cx",
>> + .uV = 7,
>> + .uA = 100000,
>> + },
> vdd cx and vdd mx are corners. The plan is to _not_ use the
> regulator framework for those, so treating them like supplies is
> incorrect here.
vdd cx and mx though in downstream are voted for corner but they are
always ON domain upstream as per regulator team when i discussed with them.
should i drop them altogether?
>
>> + {
>> + .supply = "vdd_pll",
>> + .uV = 1800000,
>> + .uA = 100000,
>> + },
>> + {}
>> + },
--
Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
On 03/03, Dwivedi, Avaneesh Kumar (avani) wrote:
> On 2/28/2017 4:18 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >On 01/30, Avaneesh Kumar Dwivedi wrote:
> >>@@ -1213,6 +1299,47 @@ static int q6v5_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>+static const struct rproc_hexagon_res msm8996_mss = {
> >>+ .hexagon_mba_image = "mba.mbn",
> >>+ .proxy_supply = (struct qcom_mss_reg_res[]) {
> >>+ {
> >>+ .supply = "vdd_mx",
> >>+ .uV = 6,
> >>+ },
> >>+ {
> >>+ .supply = "vdd_cx",
> >>+ .uV = 7,
> >>+ .uA = 100000,
> >>+ },
> >vdd cx and vdd mx are corners. The plan is to _not_ use the
> >regulator framework for those, so treating them like supplies is
> >incorrect here.
> vdd cx and mx though in downstream are voted for corner but they are
> always ON domain upstream as per regulator team when i discussed
> with them.
> should i drop them altogether?
I would say yes, drop them. The on/off state doesn't matter here.
This code wants to max out the corner for a period of time until
the remote processor has booted far enough to make their own vote
on these RPM resources.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project