Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 17 Jul 2019 09:33:17 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
To:     Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>,
        Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com>, <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        <jason@lakedaemon.net>, <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, <stefan@agner.ch>,
        <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <pgaikwad@nvidia.com>, <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        <jckuo@nvidia.com>, <talho@nvidia.com>,
        <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <mperttunen@nvidia.com>, <spatra@nvidia.com>, <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 11/18] clk: tegra210: Add support for Tegra210 clocks
Message-ID: <20190717093317.70fefb27@dimatab>
In-Reply-To: <093462f3-8c6d-d084-9822-ae4eff041c64@nvidia.com>
References: <a5e1a6df-dff7-9e0c-9551-f78103a5462f@gmail.com>
        <72b5df8c-8acb-d0d0-ebcf-b406e8404973@nvidia.com>
        <2b701832-5548-7c83-7c17-05cc2f1470c8@nvidia.com>
        <76e341be-6f38-2bc1-048e-1aa6883f9b88@gmail.com>
        <0706576a-ce61-1cf3-bed1-05f54a1e2489@nvidia.com>
        <5b2945c5-fcb2-2ac0-2bf2-df869dc9c713@gmail.com>
        <ef63f72a-db03-ef28-a371-e578f351c713@nvidia.com>
        <27641e30-fdd1-e53a-206d-71e1f23343fd@gmail.com>
        <10c4b9a2-a857-d124-c22d-7fd71a473079@nvidia.com>
        <fd8bad73-464b-54f1-be94-fe3ac8b23e6e@gmail.com>
        <0ee06d1a-310d-59f7-0aa6-b688b33447f5@nvidia.com>
        <cedfafd0-4114-0821-0c4b-efc17c213449@gmail.com>
        <707c4679-fde6-1714-ced0-dcf7ca8380a9@nvidia.com>
        <c6c0a205-c083-fd46-361c-175bd8840c6e@nvidia.com>
        <055457fd-621b-6c93-b671-d5e5380698c6@nvidia.com>
        <20190717071105.3750a021@dimatab>
        <77df234f-aa40-0319-a593-f1f19f0f1c2a@nvidia.com>
        <20190717084221.2e9af56c@dimatab>
        <093462f3-8c6d-d084-9822-ae4eff041c64@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

=D0=92 Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:55:52 -0700
Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:

> On 7/16/19 10:42 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > =D0=92 Tue, 16 Jul 2019 22:25:25 -0700
> > Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=
=D1=82:
> > =20
> >> On 7/16/19 9:11 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>> =D0=92 Tue, 16 Jul 2019 19:35:49 -0700
> >>> Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com> =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=
=D1=82:
> >>>    =20
> >>>> On 7/16/19 7:18 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote: =20
> >>>>> On 7/16/19 3:06 PM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote: =20
> >>>>>> On 7/16/19 3:00 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>>>>> 17.07.2019 0:35, Sowjanya Komatineni =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=
=82: =20
> >>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 2:21 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>> 17.07.2019 0:12, Sowjanya Komatineni =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=
=D1=82: =20
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 1:47 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 22:26, Sowjanya Komatineni =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=
=B5=D1=82: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 11:43 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 21:30, Sowjanya Komatineni =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=
=B5=D1=82: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 11:25 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 21:19, Sowjanya Komatineni =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=
=D0=B5=D1=82: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 9:50 AM, Sowjanya Komatineni wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/16/19 8:00 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 16.07.2019 11:06, Peter De Schrijver =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=
=88=D0=B5=D1=82: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:24:26PM +0800, Joseph
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lo wrote: =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, Will add to CPUFreq driver... =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other thing that also need attention is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that T124 CPUFreq
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implicitly relies on DFLL driver to be probed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first, which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> icky.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I add check for successful dfll clk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> register explicitly in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq driver probe and defer till dfll clk
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> registers? =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably you should use the "device links". See
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1][2] for the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2.1/source/drivers=
/gpu/drm/tegra/dc.c#L2383
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/devi=
ce_link.html
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Return EPROBE_DEFER instead of EINVAL if
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device_link_add() fails.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use of_find_device_by_node() to get the DFLL's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> device, see [3].
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/l=
inux-next.git/tree/drivers/devfreq/tegra20-devfreq.c#n100
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will go thru and add... =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I initially confused this case with getting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orphaned clock.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm now seeing that the DFLL driver registers the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock and then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clk_get(dfll) should be returning EPROBE_DEFER until
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL driver is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probed, hence everything should be fine as-is and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no real
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the 'device link'. Sorry for the confusion!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't follow the mail thread. Just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the DFLL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you know it, the DFLL clock is one of the CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock sources and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated with DVFS control logic with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulator. We will not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU to other clock sources once we switched to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL. Because the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been regulated by the DFLL HW with the DVFS table
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (CVB or OPP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the driver.). We shouldn't reparent it to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other sources with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unknew
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freq/volt pair. That's not guaranteed to work. We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow switching to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open-loop mode but different sources. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, then the CPUFreq driver will have to enforce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL freq to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate before switching to PLLP in order to have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper CPU voltage. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP freq is safe to work for any CPU voltage. So no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to enforce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL freq to PLLP rate before changing CCLK_G source
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to PLLP during
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, please ignore my above comment. During
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspend, need to change
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CCLK_G source to PLLP when dfll is in closed loop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode first and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dfll need to be set to open loop. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And I don't exactly understand why we need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> switch to PLLP in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idle
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver. Just keep it on CL-DVFS mode all the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In SC7 entry, the dfll suspend function moves it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the open-loop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode. That's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. The sc7-entryfirmware will handle the rest
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sequence to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn off
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CPU power.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In SC7 resume, the warmboot code will handle the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequence to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> turn on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulator and power up the CPU cluster. And leave
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it on PLL_P.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resuming to the kernel, we re-init DFLL, restore
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the CPU clock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> policy (CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs on DFLL open-loop mode) and then moving to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> close-loop mode. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DFLL is re-inited after switching CCLK to DFLL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent during of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> early clocks-state restoring by CaR driver. Hence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of having
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> odd
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hacks in the CaR driver, it is much nicer to have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proper suspend-resume sequencing of the device
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers. In this case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver is the driver that enables DFLL and switches
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU to that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clock
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source, which means that this driver is also should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be responsible for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> management of the DFLL's state during of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspend/resume process. If
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPUFreq driver disables DFLL during suspend and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-enables it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resume, then looks like the CaR driver hacks around
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFLL are not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The DFLL part looks good to me. BTW, change the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patch subject to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Add
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suspend-resume support" seems more appropriate to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To clarify this, the sequences for DFLL use are as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows (assuming
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required DFLL hw configuration has been done)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Switch to DFLL:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0) Save current parent and frequency
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Enable DFLL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Change cclk_g parent to DFLL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For OVR regulator:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Change PWM output pin from tristate to output
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Enable DFLL PWM output
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For I2C regulator:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Enable DFLL I2C output
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Program DFLL to closed loop mode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Switch away from DFLL:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0) Change cclk_g parent to PLLP so the CPU
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency is ok for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vdd_cpu voltage
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Program DFLL to open loop mode
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see during switch away from DFLL (suspend), cclk_g
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parent is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed to PLLP before changing dfll to open loop
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mode.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Will add this ... =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The CPUFreq driver switches parent to PLLP during the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probe, similar
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be done on suspend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering if it's always safe to switch to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP in the probe.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If CPU is running on a lower freq than PLLP, then some
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other more
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate intermediate parent should be selected.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CPU parents are PLL_X, PLL_P, and dfll. PLL_X always
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs at higher
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> so switching to PLL_P during CPUFreq probe prior to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dfll clock enable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be safe. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK, PLLX could run at ~200MHz. There is also a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> divided output of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PLLP
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> which CCLKG supports, the PLLP_OUT4.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Probably, realistically, CPU is always running off a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fast PLLX during
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> boot, but I'm wondering what may happen on KEXEC. I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> guess ideally CPUFreq driver should also have a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'shutdown' callback to teardown DFLL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on a reboot, but likely that there are other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> clock-related problems as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well that may break KEXEC and thus it is not very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> important at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip] =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> During bootup CPUG sources from PLL_X. By PLL_P source
> >>>>>>>>>>>> above I meant
> >>>>>>>>>>>> PLL_P_OUT4.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As per clock policies, PLL_X is always used for high freq
> >>>>>>>>>>>> like =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 800Mhz =20
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and for low frequency it will be sourced from PLLP. =20
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alright, then please don't forget to pre-initialize
> >>>>>>>>>>> PLLP_OUT4 rate to a
> >>>>>>>>>>> reasonable value using tegra_clk_init_table or
> >>>>>>>>>>> assigned-clocks. =20
> >>>>>>>>>> PLLP_OUT4 rate update is not needed as it is safe to run at
> >>>>>>>>>> 408Mhz because it is below fmax @ Vmin =20
> >>>>>>>>> So even 204MHz CVB entries are having the same voltage as
> >>>>>>>>> 408MHz, correct? It's not instantly obvious to me from the
> >>>>>>>>> DFLL driver's code where the fmax @ Vmin is defined, I see
> >>>>>>>>> that there is the min_millivolts
> >>>>>>>>> and frequency entries starting from 204MHZ defined
> >>>>>>>>> per-table. =20
> >>>>>>>> Yes at Vmin CPU Fmax is ~800Mhz. So anything below that will
> >>>>>>>> work at Vmin voltage and PLLP max is 408Mhz. =20
> >>>>>>> Thank you for the clarification. It would be good to have that
> >>>>>>> commented
> >>>>>>> in the code as well. =20
> >>>>>> OK, Will add... =20
> >>>>> Regarding, adding suspend/resume to CPUFreq, CPUFreq suspend
> >>>>> happens very early even before disabling non-boot CPUs and also
> >>>>> need to export clock driver APIs to CPUFreq.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Was thinking of below way of implementing this...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clock DFLL driver Suspend:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - Save CPU clock policy reg=
isters, and Perform dfll
> >>>>> suspend which sets in open loop mode
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CPU Freq driver Suspend: does nothing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Clock DFLL driver Resume:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - Re-init DFLL, Set in Open=
-Loop mode, restore CPU
> >>>>> Clock policy registers which actually sets source to DFLL along
> >>>>> with other CPU Policy register restore.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CPU Freq driver Resume:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - do clk_prepare_enable whi=
ch acutally sets DFLL in
> >>>>> Closed loop mode
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Adding one more note: Switching CPU Clock to PLLP is not needed
> >>>>> as CPU CLock can be from dfll in open-loop mode as DFLL is not
> >>>>> disabled anywhere throught the suspend/resume path and SC7 entry
> >>>>> FW and Warm boot code will switch CPU source to PLLP. =20
> >>> Since CPU resumes on PLLP, it will be cleaner to suspend it on
> >>> PLLP as well. And besides, seems that currently disabling DFLL
> >>> clock will disable DFLL completely and then you'd want to re-init
> >>> the DFLL on resume any ways. So better to just disable DFLL
> >>> completely on suspend, which should happen on clk_disable(dfll). =20
> >> Will switch to PLLP during CPUFreq suspend. With decision of using
> >> clk_disable during suspend, its mandatory to switch to PLLP as DFLL
> >> is completely disabled.
> >>
> >> My earlier concern was on restoring CPU policy as we can't do that
> >> from CPUFreq driver and need export from clock driver.
> >>
> >> Clear now and will do CPU clock policy restore in after dfll
> >> re-init. =20
> > Why the policy can't be saved/restored by the CaR driver as a
> > context of any other clock? =20
>=20
> restoring cpu clock policy involves programming source and=20
> super_cclkg_divider.
>=20
> cclk_g is registered as clk_super_mux and it doesn't use frac_div ops
> to do save/restore its divider.

That can be changed of course and I guess it also could be as simple as
saving and restoring of two raw u32 values of the policy/divider
registers.

> Also, during clock context we cant restore cclk_g as cclk_g source
> will be dfll and dfll will not be resumed/re-initialized by the time=20
> clk_super_mux save/restore happens.
>=20
> we can't use save/restore context for dfll clk_ops because
> dfllCPU_out parent to CCLK_G is first in the clock tree and dfll_ref
> and dfll_soc peripheral clocks are not restored by the time dfll
> restore happens. Also dfll peripheral clock enables need to be
> restored before dfll restore happens which involves programming dfll
> controller for re-initialization.
>=20
> So dfll resume/re-init is done in clk-tegra210 at end of all clocks=20
> restore in V5 series but instead of in clk-tegra210 driver I moved
> now to dfll-fcpu driver pm_ops as all dfll dependencies will be
> restored thru clk_restore_context by then. This will be in V6.

Since DFLL is now guaranteed to be disabled across CaR suspend/resume
(hence it has nothing to do in regards to CCLK) and given that PLLs
state is restored before the rest of the clocks, I don't see why not to
implement CCLK save/restore in a generic fasion. CPU policy wull be
restored to either PLLP or PLLX (if CPUFreq driver is disabled).