| Message ID | 1442723397-26329-6-git-send-email-scottwood@freescale.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Scott Wood |
| Headers | show |
On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree > description of the mux options. > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that > are no longer valid. > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > --- > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes > to clk api usage > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------------- > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree > > > description of the mux options. > > > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that > > > are no longer valid. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > > > --- > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes > > > to clk api usage > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------------------- > > > ------- > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, each of which will have patches that depend on it. -Scott
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree > > description of the mux options. > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that > > are no longer valid. > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > > --- > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes > > to clk api usage > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? Rafael
On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface > > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a > > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that > > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > > > > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock > > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree > > > > description of the mux options. > > > > > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes > > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly > > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on > > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask > > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that > > > > are no longer valid. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > > > > --- > > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes > > > > to clk api usage > > > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------------------- > > > > ------- > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? > > As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply > these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, > each of which will have patches that depend on it. OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from Viresh. Thanks, Rafael
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: >> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: >> > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface >> > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a >> > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that >> > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. >> > > > >> > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock >> > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree >> > > > description of the mux options. >> > > > >> > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes >> > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly >> > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = >> > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum >> > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on >> > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar >> > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask >> > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that >> > > > are no longer valid. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> >> > > > --- >> > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes >> > > > to clk api usage >> > > > >> > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------------------- >> > > > ------- >> > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) >> > > >> > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> > >> > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? >> >> As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply >> these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM trees, >> each of which will have patches that depend on it. > > OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from Viresh. Hi Scott, Did you drop this patch later? I can not find it in 4.5-rc still. Regards, Leo
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 12:14 -0600, Li Yang wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> > wrote: > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: > > > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock > > > > > > interface > > > > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a > > > > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming > > > > > > that > > > > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the > > > > > > clock > > > > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree > > > > > > description of the mux options. > > > > > > > > > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only > > > > > > exposes > > > > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being > > > > > > overly > > > > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > > > > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > > > > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed > > > > > > depends on > > > > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > > > > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask > > > > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices > > > > > > that > > > > > > are no longer valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes > > > > > > to clk api usage > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------------- > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? > > > > > > As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply > > > these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM > > > trees, > > > each of which will have patches that depend on it. > > > > OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from > > Viresh. > > Hi Scott, > > Did you drop this patch later? I can not find it in 4.5-rc still. I was asked to get an ack from Russell King patch 4/5, which this patch requires. Despite repeated pings, I could not get a reply from Russell King. -Scott
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 12:14 -0600, Li Yang wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> >> wrote: >> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: >> > > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > > > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> > > > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: >> > > > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock >> > > > > > interface >> > > > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a >> > > > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the >> > > > > > clock >> > > > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree >> > > > > > description of the mux options. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only >> > > > > > exposes >> > > > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being >> > > > > > overly >> > > > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = >> > > > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum >> > > > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed >> > > > > > depends on >> > > > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar >> > > > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask >> > > > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices >> > > > > > that >> > > > > > are no longer valid. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> >> > > > > > --- >> > > > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes >> > > > > > to clk api usage >> > > > > > >> > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++--------------- >> > > > > > ------ >> > > > > > ------- >> > > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) >> > > > > >> > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> > > > >> > > > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? >> > > >> > > As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can apply >> > > these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM >> > > trees, >> > > each of which will have patches that depend on it. >> > >> > OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from >> > Viresh. >> >> Hi Scott, >> >> Did you drop this patch later? I can not find it in 4.5-rc still. > > I was asked to get an ack from Russell King patch 4/5, which this patch > requires. Despite repeated pings, I could not get a reply from Russell King. This patch? I think you should try to get ACK from clock maintainers instead of Russell. Commit fc4a05d4b0eb ("clk: Remove unused provider APIs") removed __clk_get_num_parents() and clk_hw_get_parent_by_index(), leaving only true provider API versions that operate on struct clk_hw. qoriq-cpufreq needs these functions in order to determine the options it has for calling clk_set_parent() and thus populate the cpufreq table, so revive them as legitimate consumer APIs. Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> --- v3: new patch drivers/clk/clk.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/clk.h | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+) Regards, Leo
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 15:01 -0600, Li Yang wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 12:14 -0600, Li Yang wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> > > > wrote: > > > > On Friday, September 25, 2015 04:17:07 PM Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 23:42 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 12:46:54 PM Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > On 19-09-15, 23:29, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > > > > Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to > > > > > > > > find a > > > > > > > > phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and > > > > > > > > assuming > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > clock > > > > > > > > driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device > > > > > > > > -tree > > > > > > > > description of the mux options. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux > > > > > > > > only > > > > > > > > exposes > > > > > > > > options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently > > > > > > > > being > > > > > > > > overly > > > > > > > > conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = > > > > > > > > get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum > > > > > > > > A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed > > > > > > > > depends on > > > > > > > > the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar > > > > > > > > limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency > > > > > > > > mask > > > > > > > > mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock > > > > > > > > indices > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > are no longer valid. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and > > > > > > > > changes > > > > > > > > to clk api usage > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++----------- > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > ------- > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering who's supposed to be merging this set? > > > > > > > > > > As I noted in the cover letter, I'm looking for acks so that I can > > > > > apply > > > > > these to a topic branch which can be pulled through the PPC and ARM > > > > > trees, > > > > > each of which will have patches that depend on it. > > > > > > > > OK, so no objections from the cpufreq side and you have the ACK from > > > > Viresh. > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > Did you drop this patch later? I can not find it in 4.5-rc still. > > > > I was asked to get an ack from Russell King patch 4/5, which this patch > > requires. Despite repeated pings, I could not get a reply from Russell > > King. > > This patch? I think you should try to get ACK from clock maintainers > instead of Russell. A clock maintainer was who asked me to get an ACK from Russell. -Scott
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c index 358f075..4f53fa2 100644 --- a/drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c @@ -35,53 +35,20 @@ struct cpu_data { struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table; }; +/* + * Don't use cpufreq on this SoC -- used when the SoC would have otherwise + * matched a more generic compatible. + */ +#define SOC_BLACKLIST 1 + /** * struct soc_data - SoC specific data - * @freq_mask: mask the disallowed frequencies - * @flag: unique flags + * @flags: SOC_xxx */ struct soc_data { - u32 freq_mask[4]; - u32 flag; -}; - -#define FREQ_MASK 1 -/* see hardware specification for the allowed frqeuencies */ -static const struct soc_data sdata[] = { - { /* used by p2041 and p3041 */ - .freq_mask = {0x8, 0x8, 0x2, 0x2}, - .flag = FREQ_MASK, - }, - { /* used by p5020 */ - .freq_mask = {0x8, 0x2}, - .flag = FREQ_MASK, - }, - { /* used by p4080, p5040 */ - .freq_mask = {0}, - .flag = 0, - }, + u32 flags; }; -/* - * the minimum allowed core frequency, in Hz - * for chassis v1.0, >= platform frequency - * for chassis v2.0, >= platform frequency / 2 - */ -static u32 min_cpufreq; -static const u32 *fmask; - -#if defined(CONFIG_ARM) -static int get_cpu_physical_id(int cpu) -{ - return topology_core_id(cpu); -} -#else -static int get_cpu_physical_id(int cpu) -{ - return get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu); -} -#endif - static u32 get_bus_freq(void) { struct device_node *soc; @@ -99,9 +66,10 @@ static u32 get_bus_freq(void) return sysfreq; } -static struct device_node *cpu_to_clk_node(int cpu) +static struct clk *cpu_to_clk(int cpu) { - struct device_node *np, *clk_np; + struct device_node *np; + struct clk *clk; if (!cpu_present(cpu)) return NULL; @@ -110,37 +78,28 @@ static struct device_node *cpu_to_clk_node(int cpu) if (!np) return NULL; - clk_np = of_parse_phandle(np, "clocks", 0); - if (!clk_np) - return NULL; - + clk = of_clk_get(np, 0); of_node_put(np); - - return clk_np; + return clk; } /* traverse cpu nodes to get cpu mask of sharing clock wire */ static void set_affected_cpus(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { - struct device_node *np, *clk_np; struct cpumask *dstp = policy->cpus; + struct clk *clk; int i; - np = cpu_to_clk_node(policy->cpu); - if (!np) - return; - for_each_present_cpu(i) { - clk_np = cpu_to_clk_node(i); - if (!clk_np) + clk = cpu_to_clk(i); + if (IS_ERR(clk)) { + pr_err("%s: no clock for cpu %d\n", __func__, i); continue; + } - if (clk_np == np) + if (clk_is_match(policy->clk, clk)) cpumask_set_cpu(i, dstp); - - of_node_put(clk_np); } - of_node_put(np); } /* reduce the duplicated frequencies in frequency table */ @@ -198,7 +157,7 @@ static int qoriq_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) { struct device_node *np, *pnode; int i, count, ret; - u32 freq, mask; + u32 freq; struct clk *clk; struct cpufreq_frequency_table *table; struct cpu_data *data; @@ -219,17 +178,12 @@ static int qoriq_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) goto err_nomem2; } - pnode = of_parse_phandle(np, "clocks", 0); - if (!pnode) { - pr_err("%s: could not get clock information\n", __func__); - goto err_nomem2; - } + count = clk_get_num_parents(policy->clk); - count = of_property_count_strings(pnode, "clock-names"); data->pclk = kcalloc(count, sizeof(struct clk *), GFP_KERNEL); if (!data->pclk) { pr_err("%s: no memory\n", __func__); - goto err_node; + goto err_nomem2; } table = kcalloc(count + 1, sizeof(*table), GFP_KERNEL); @@ -238,23 +192,11 @@ static int qoriq_cpufreq_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) goto err_pclk; } - if (fmask) - mask = fmask[get_cpu_physical_id(cpu)]; - else - mask = 0x0; - for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { - clk = of_clk_get(pnode, i); + clk = clk_get_parent_by_index(policy->clk, i); data->pclk[i] = clk; freq = clk_get_rate(clk); - /* - * the clock is valid if its frequency is not masked - * and large than minimum allowed frequency. - */ - if (freq < min_cpufreq || (mask & (1 << i))) - table[i].frequency = CPUFREQ_ENTRY_INVALID; - else - table[i].frequency = freq / 1000; + table[i].frequency = freq / 1000; table[i].driver_data = i; } freq_table_redup(table, count); @@ -288,10 +230,7 @@ err_nomem1: kfree(table); err_pclk: kfree(data->pclk); -err_node: - of_node_put(pnode); err_nomem2: - policy->driver_data = NULL; kfree(data); err_np: of_node_put(np); @@ -332,12 +271,20 @@ static struct cpufreq_driver qoriq_cpufreq_driver = { .attr = cpufreq_generic_attr, }; +static const struct soc_data blacklist = { + .flags = SOC_BLACKLIST, +}; + static const struct of_device_id node_matches[] __initconst = { - { .compatible = "fsl,p2041-clockgen", .data = &sdata[0], }, - { .compatible = "fsl,p3041-clockgen", .data = &sdata[0], }, - { .compatible = "fsl,p5020-clockgen", .data = &sdata[1], }, - { .compatible = "fsl,p4080-clockgen", .data = &sdata[2], }, - { .compatible = "fsl,p5040-clockgen", .data = &sdata[2], }, + /* e6500 cannot use cpufreq due to erratum A-008083 */ + { .compatible = "fsl,b4420-clockgen", &blacklist }, + { .compatible = "fsl,b4860-clockgen", &blacklist }, + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-clockgen", &blacklist }, + { .compatible = "fsl,t4240-clockgen", &blacklist }, + + { .compatible = "fsl,ls1021a-clockgen", }, + { .compatible = "fsl,p4080-clockgen", }, + { .compatible = "fsl,qoriq-clockgen-1.0", }, { .compatible = "fsl,qoriq-clockgen-2.0", }, {} }; @@ -355,16 +302,12 @@ static int __init qoriq_cpufreq_init(void) match = of_match_node(node_matches, np); data = match->data; - if (data) { - if (data->flag) - fmask = data->freq_mask; - min_cpufreq = get_bus_freq(); - } else { - min_cpufreq = get_bus_freq() / 2; - } of_node_put(np); + if (data && data->flags & SOC_BLACKLIST) + return -ENODEV; + ret = cpufreq_register_driver(&qoriq_cpufreq_driver); if (!ret) pr_info("Freescale QorIQ CPU frequency scaling driver\n");
Get the CPU clock's potential parent clocks from the clock interface itself, rather than manually parsing the clocks property to find a phandle, looking at the clock-names property of that, and assuming that those are valid parent clocks for the cpu clock. This is necessary now that the clocks are generated based on the clock driver's knowledge of the chip rather than a fragile device-tree description of the mux options. We can now rely on the clock driver to ensure that the mux only exposes options that are valid. The cpufreq driver was currently being overly conservative in some cases -- for example, the "min_cpufreq = get_bus_freq()" restriction only applies to chips with erratum A-004510, and whether the freq_mask used on p5020 is needed depends on the actual frequencies of the PLLs (FWIW, p5040 has a similar limitation but its .freq_mask was zero) -- and the frequency mask mechanism made assumptions about particular parent clock indices that are no longer valid. Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> --- v3: was patch 1/5 and patch 4/5, plus blacklist e6500 and changes to clk api usage drivers/cpufreq/qoriq-cpufreq.c | 137 ++++++++++++---------------------------- 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)