| Message ID | 1583992911-12001-1-git-send-email-ppvk@codeaurora.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add SDHC interconnect bandwidth scaling | expand |
On 2020-03-13 02:19, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: Hi Matthias, Thanks for reviewing. > Hi Pradeep, > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:31:50AM +0530, Pradeep P V K wrote: >> Add interconnect bandwidths for SDHC driver using OPP framework that >> is required by SDHC driver based on the clock frequency and bus width >> of the card. Otherwise, the system clocks may run at minimum clock >> speed and thus affecting the performance. >> >> This change is based on >> [RFC] mmc: host: sdhci-msm: Use the interconnect API >> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/11/499) and >> >> [PATCH v6] Introduce Bandwidth OPPs for interconnects >> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/6/740) >> >> Co-developed-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org> >> Co-developed-by: Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Subhash Jadavani <subhashj@codeaurora.org> >> Co-developed-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Veerabhadrarao Badiganti <vbadigan@codeaurora.org> >> Co-developed-by: Pradeep P V K <ppvk@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Pradeep P V K <ppvk@codeaurora.org> >> --- >> >> RFC v4 -> v5: >> - Rewrote the icc interconnect get handlers and its error handling >> and allocated vote data after handling all icc get handler errors. >> - Removed explicit error check on ICC handlers. >> - Addressed minor code style comments. >> >> drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c | 231 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 227 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> index 09ff731..5fe8fad 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sdhci-msm.c >> >> ... >> >> +/* >> + * This function sets the interconnect bus bandwidth >> + * vote based on bw (bandwidth) argument. >> + */ >> +#define BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS 2 /* 1. sdhc -> ddr 2. cpu -> sdhc */ >> +static void sdhci_msm_bus_set_vote(struct sdhci_host *host, >> + unsigned int bw) >> +{ >> + int i, err; >> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); >> + struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); >> + struct sdhci_msm_bus_vote_data *vote_data = msm_host->bus_vote_data; >> + struct device *dev = &msm_host->pdev->dev; >> + struct dev_pm_opp *opp; >> + unsigned long freq = bw; >> + unsigned long peak_bw[BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS] = {0}; >> + unsigned long avg_bw[BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS] = {0}; >> + >> + if (bw == vote_data->curr_freq) >> + return; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS; i++) { >> + opp = sdhci_msm_find_opp_for_freq(msm_host, freq); >> + if (opp) { >> + avg_bw[i] = dev_pm_opp_get_bw(opp, &peak_bw[i]); >> + freq += 1; /* Next bandwidth vote */ >> + dev_pm_opp_put(opp); >> + } >> + } >> + pr_debug("%s: freq:%d sdhc_to_ddr avg_bw:%lu peak_bw:%lu cpu_to_sdhc >> avg_bw:%lu peak_bw:%lu\n", >> + mmc_hostname(host->mmc), bw, avg_bw[0], peak_bw[0], >> + avg_bw[1], peak_bw[1]); >> + err = icc_set_bw(vote_data->sdhc_to_ddr, 0, peak_bw[0]); >> + if (err) { >> + dev_err(dev, "icc_set() failed for 'sdhc-ddr' path err:%d\n", >> + err); > > nit: the alignment is odd, either align with 'dev' or a tab after > 'dev_err' > sure, will do this in my next patch set. >> + return; >> + } >> + err = icc_set_bw(vote_data->cpu_to_sdhc, 0, peak_bw[1]); >> + if (err) { >> + dev_err(dev, "icc_set() failed for 'cpu-sdhc' path err:%d\n", >> + err); > > ditto > ok. >> + return; >> + } >> + vote_data->curr_freq = bw; >> +} >> + >> +/* >> + * Helper function to register for OPP and interconnect >> + * frameworks. >> + */ >> +static struct sdhci_msm_bus_vote_data >> + *sdhci_msm_bus_register(struct sdhci_msm_host *host, >> + struct platform_device *pdev) >> +{ >> + struct sdhci_msm_bus_vote_data *vote_data; >> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >> + int ret, i, err; > > nit: you can get rid of 'ret' and use 'err' instead. > ok. i will do this in my next patchset. >> + struct icc_path *icc_paths[BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS]; >> + const char *path_names[] = { >> + "sdhc-ddr", >> + "cpu-sdhc", >> + }; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS; i++) >> + icc_paths[i] = of_icc_get(&pdev->dev, path_names[i]); >> + >> + if (!icc_paths[0] && !icc_paths[1]) { >> + dev_info(&pdev->dev, "ICC DT property is missing.Skip vote!!\n"); >> + return NULL; >> + } >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < BUS_INTERCONNECT_PATHS; i++) { >> + if (!icc_paths[i]) { >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "interconnect path '%s' is not configured\n", >> + path_names[i]); >> + err = -EINVAL; >> + goto handle_err; >> + } >> + if (IS_ERR(icc_paths[i])) { >> + err = PTR_ERR(icc_paths[i]); >> + >> + if (err != -EPROBE_DEFER) >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "interconnect path '%s' is invalid:%d\n", >> + path_names[i], err); >> + goto handle_err; >> + } >> + } >> + >> + ret = dev_pm_opp_of_add_table(dev); >> + if (ret) { >> + if (ret == -ENODEV || ret == -ENODATA) >> + dev_err(dev, "OPP dt properties missing:%d\n", ret); >> + else >> + dev_err(dev, "OPP registration failed:%d\n", ret); > > need to call icc_put() for the two paths? > hmm yes. coming here means, we got both icc paths without error. So, should put both icc paths. I will handle this by adding a new goto jump tag. >> + return ERR_PTR(ret); >> + } >> + >> + vote_data = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*vote_data), GFP_KERNEL); >> + if (!vote_data) > > ditto > > probably you want to do this with a jump to an error handler below. > ok. i will handle this by adding a new goto jump tag. >> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> + >> + vote_data->sdhc_to_ddr = icc_paths[0]; >> + vote_data->cpu_to_sdhc = icc_paths[1]; >> + return vote_data; > > nit: add empty line > ok. >> +handle_err: >> + if (err) { >> + int other = (i == 0) ? 1 : 0; >> + >> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(icc_paths[other])) >> + icc_put(icc_paths[other]); >> + } > > doing this at the end (as opposed to my suggestion from > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11388409/#23165321) has the > advantage of > keeping the above loop cleaner from error handling cruft, on the > downside it > is probably easier to understand right away in the context of the loop. > I > guess you can do it either way. > True. i will leave this error handling at bottom as the code looks more cleaner. > It might get a bit more messy if you also handle the case where both > paths are > valid. If that gets too involved I'd suggest to hnadle the above case > inside > the loop. > hmm true, handling the above error in loop making the code more messy so, i'm using a new tag (put_icc) to put both the icc paths. >> + return ERR_PTR(err); >> +} >> + >> +static void sdhci_msm_bus_unregister(struct device *dev, >> + struct sdhci_msm_host *host) >> +{ >> + struct sdhci_msm_bus_vote_data *vote_data = host->bus_vote_data; >> + >> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(vote_data)) > > I think 'if (!vote_data)' would be sufficient, since _probe() aborts in > case of an error. > ok. i will handle this in my next patch set. >> + return; >> + >> + icc_put(vote_data->sdhc_to_ddr); >> + icc_put(vote_data->cpu_to_sdhc); >> +} >> + >> +static void sdhci_msm_bus_voting(struct sdhci_host *host, bool >> enable) >> +{ >> + struct mmc_ios *ios = &host->mmc->ios; >> + struct sdhci_pltfm_host *pltfm_host = sdhci_priv(host); >> + struct sdhci_msm_host *msm_host = sdhci_pltfm_priv(pltfm_host); >> + unsigned int bw; >> + >> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(msm_host->bus_vote_data)) >> + return; > > ditto ok.