Add support for active_only parent data for gcc_parents_0
as some of the clocks under it are crtical and vote on XO
during suspend.
Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
---
Satya Priya Kakitapalli (3):
dt-bindings: clock: qcom,gcc-sm8150: Add support for bi_tcxo_ao
clk: qcom: gcc-sm8150: Add gcc_parents_0_ao support
arm64: dts: qcom: sm8150: Add bi_tcxo_ao support for gcc
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml | 6 ++++--
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi | 3 ++-
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c | 10 ++++++++--
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 774551425799cb5bbac94e1768fd69eec4f78dd4
change-id: 20240123-gcc-ao-support-dbab551ea4f0
Best regards,
--
Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
Add support for bi_tcxo_ao, this allows to put an active only vote on
the critical clocks.
Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml
index 58ccb7df847c..17e29e9bbc11 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml
@@ -23,11 +23,13 @@ properties:
clocks:
items:
- description: Board XO source
+ - description: Board XO active only source
- description: Sleep clock source
clock-names:
items:
- const: bi_tcxo
+ - const: bi_tcxo_ao
- const: sleep_clk
required:
@@ -46,9 +48,9 @@ examples:
clock-controller@100000 {
compatible = "qcom,gcc-sm8150";
reg = <0x00100000 0x1f0000>;
- clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>,
+ clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>, <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK_A>,
<&sleep_clk>;
- clock-names = "bi_tcxo", "sleep_clk";
+ clock-names = "bi_tcxo", "bi_tcxo_ao", "sleep_clk";
#clock-cells = <1>;
#reset-cells = <1>;
#power-domain-cells = <1>;
--
2.25.1
Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
blocking the suspend.
Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
---
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
index 05d115c52dfe..2a0608c5a104 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
@@ -123,6 +123,12 @@ static const struct clk_parent_data gcc_parents_0[] = {
{ .hw = &gpll0_out_even.clkr.hw },
};
+static const struct clk_parent_data gcc_parents_0_ao[] = {
+ { .fw_name = "bi_tcxo_ao", .name = "bi_tcxo_ao" },
+ { .hw = &gpll0.clkr.hw },
+ { .hw = &gpll0_out_even.clkr.hw },
+};
+
static const struct parent_map gcc_parent_map_1[] = {
{ P_BI_TCXO, 0 },
{ P_GPLL0_OUT_MAIN, 1 },
@@ -222,8 +228,8 @@ static struct clk_rcg2 gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src = {
.freq_tbl = ftbl_gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src,
.clkr.hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
.name = "gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src",
- .parent_data = gcc_parents_0,
- .num_parents = ARRAY_SIZE(gcc_parents_0),
+ .parent_data = gcc_parents_0_ao,
+ .num_parents = ARRAY_SIZE(gcc_parents_0_ao),
.flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
.ops = &clk_rcg2_ops,
},
--
2.25.1
Add bi_tcxo_ao support to be able to put active only vote
on critical clocks during suspend.
Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi
index 761a6757dc26..b91ef95c0c3a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8150.dtsi
@@ -906,9 +906,10 @@ gcc: clock-controller@100000 {
#clock-cells = <1>;
#reset-cells = <1>;
#power-domain-cells = <1>;
- clock-names = "bi_tcxo",
+ clock-names = "bi_tcxo", "bi_tcxo_ao",
"sleep_clk";
clocks = <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>,
+ <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK_A>,
<&sleep_clk>;
};
--
2.25.1
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 18:35, Satya Priya Kakitapalli
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
> blocking the suspend.
The kernel should be able to work with older DT files. Please add
support for using bi_tcxo as a fallback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
> index 05d115c52dfe..2a0608c5a104 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8150.c
> @@ -123,6 +123,12 @@ static const struct clk_parent_data gcc_parents_0[] = {
> { .hw = &gpll0_out_even.clkr.hw },
> };
>
> +static const struct clk_parent_data gcc_parents_0_ao[] = {
> + { .fw_name = "bi_tcxo_ao", .name = "bi_tcxo_ao" },
> + { .hw = &gpll0.clkr.hw },
> + { .hw = &gpll0_out_even.clkr.hw },
> +};
> +
> static const struct parent_map gcc_parent_map_1[] = {
> { P_BI_TCXO, 0 },
> { P_GPLL0_OUT_MAIN, 1 },
> @@ -222,8 +228,8 @@ static struct clk_rcg2 gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src = {
> .freq_tbl = ftbl_gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src,
> .clkr.hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> .name = "gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src",
> - .parent_data = gcc_parents_0,
> - .num_parents = ARRAY_SIZE(gcc_parents_0),
> + .parent_data = gcc_parents_0_ao,
> + .num_parents = ARRAY_SIZE(gcc_parents_0_ao),
> .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> .ops = &clk_rcg2_ops,
> },
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 1/23/24 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
> blocking the suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
> ---
Is there a need to keep gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src around? Do we do any
ratesetting on it? Should we ever turn it off?
Konrad
On 23/01/2024 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
> Add support for bi_tcxo_ao, this allows to put an active only vote on
> the critical clocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml
> index 58ccb7df847c..17e29e9bbc11 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sm8150.yaml
> @@ -23,11 +23,13 @@ properties:
> clocks:
> items:
> - description: Board XO source
> + - description: Board XO active only source
> - description: Sleep clock source
>
> clock-names:
> items:
> - const: bi_tcxo
> + - const: bi_tcxo_ao
> - const: sleep_clk
You cannot add clocks in the middle. The order is fixed.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 1/23/2024 11:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 1/23/24 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
>> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
>> blocking the suspend.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
>> ---
>
> Is there a need to keep gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src around? Do we do any
> ratesetting on it? Should we ever turn it off?
>
The branch clocks under gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src are critical clocks, which
are running at 19.2Mhz causing vote on XO during suspend. As of now no
rate setting is happening but this rcg is useful to get the exact rates
from debugfs. Hence this change is needed to avoid XO shutdown issues.
On 1/25/24 06:49, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>
> On 1/23/2024 11:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/24 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>>> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
>>> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
>>> blocking the suspend.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>
>> Is there a need to keep gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src around? Do we do any
>> ratesetting on it? Should we ever turn it off?
>>
>
> The branch clocks under gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src are critical clocks, which are running at 19.2Mhz causing vote on XO during suspend. As of now no rate setting is happening but this rcg is useful to get the exact rates from debugfs. Hence this change is needed to avoid XO shutdown issues.
So, if I underderstood you correctly, this clock serves no purpose other
than getting rate?
In this case, I'd say we should de-register it from the clock driver and
use debugcc [1] (contributions welcome!) for precise measurements.
Konrad
[1] https://github.com/linux-msm/debugcc
On 1/25/2024 3:25 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/24 06:49, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>>
>> On 1/23/2024 11:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/23/24 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>>>> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
>>>> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
>>>> blocking the suspend.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Is there a need to keep gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src around? Do we do any
>>> ratesetting on it? Should we ever turn it off?
>>>
>>
>> The branch clocks under gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src are critical clocks,
>> which are running at 19.2Mhz causing vote on XO during suspend. As of
>> now no rate setting is happening but this rcg is useful to get the
>> exact rates from debugfs. Hence this change is needed to avoid XO
>> shutdown issues.
>
> So, if I underderstood you correctly, this clock serves no purpose other
> than getting rate?
>
> In this case, I'd say we should de-register it from the clock driver and
> use debugcc [1] (contributions welcome!) for precise measurements.
>
Although currently there is no rate-setting happening now, its better to
keep the rcg modelling as is, considering that it might be needed if
some use case arises in future.
On 5.02.2024 09:37, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>
> On 1/25/2024 3:25 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/24 06:49, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/23/2024 11:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/23/24 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>>>>> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
>>>>> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
>>>>> blocking the suspend.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Is there a need to keep gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src around? Do we do any
>>>> ratesetting on it? Should we ever turn it off?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The branch clocks under gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src are critical clocks, which are running at 19.2Mhz causing vote on XO during suspend. As of now no rate setting is happening but this rcg is useful to get the exact rates from debugfs. Hence this change is needed to avoid XO shutdown issues.
>>
>> So, if I underderstood you correctly, this clock serves no purpose other
>> than getting rate?
>>
>> In this case, I'd say we should de-register it from the clock driver and
>> use debugcc [1] (contributions welcome!) for precise measurements.
>>
>
> Although currently there is no rate-setting happening now, its better to keep the rcg modelling as is, considering that it might be needed if some use case arises in future.
We don't tend to solve imaginary problems, please lay out what it would be
used for, if at all. Then, we can assess whether it's necessary.
Konrad
On 2/5/2024 5:03 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 5.02.2024 09:37, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>> On 1/25/2024 3:25 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/25/24 06:49, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp) wrote:
>>>> On 1/23/2024 11:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/23/24 17:34, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
>>>>>> Add active_only support for gcc_parents_0, this is needed because
>>>>>> some of the clocks under it are critical which would vote on xo
>>>>>> blocking the suspend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> Is there a need to keep gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src around? Do we do any
>>>>> ratesetting on it? Should we ever turn it off?
>>>>>
>>>> The branch clocks under gcc_cpuss_ahb_clk_src are critical clocks, which are running at 19.2Mhz causing vote on XO during suspend. As of now no rate setting is happening but this rcg is useful to get the exact rates from debugfs. Hence this change is needed to avoid XO shutdown issues.
>>> So, if I underderstood you correctly, this clock serves no purpose other
>>> than getting rate?
>>>
>>> In this case, I'd say we should de-register it from the clock driver and
>>> use debugcc [1] (contributions welcome!) for precise measurements.
>>>
>> Although currently there is no rate-setting happening now, its better to keep the rcg modelling as is, considering that it might be needed if some use case arises in future.
> We don't tend to solve imaginary problems, please lay out what it would be
> used for, if at all. Then, we can assess whether it's necessary.
Okay, I'll de-register this RCG.