Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1420212 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com> - 2016-06-12 11:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for  dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com> - 2016-06-12 12:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for  dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> - 2016-06-13 20:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for  dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-06-13 22:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> - 2016-06-14 00:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for  dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-06-14 18:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for  dclk_vop0_div on RK3399 Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-06-22 02:40 +0200

#1420212 — [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
screen.

Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>
---

 drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
index 7ecb12c3..6affa75 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
@@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = {
 	GATE(HCLK_VOP0_NOC, "hclk_vop0_noc", "hclk_vop0_pre", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
 			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(28), 0, GFLAGS),
 
-	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, 0,
+	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
 			RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(49), 8, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 8, DFLAGS,
 			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(10), 12, GFLAGS),
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1420225 — Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

Xing,

On 06/12/2016 05:48 PM, Xing Zheng wrote:
> The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
> use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
> screen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>

Tested on RK3399 Kevin board, after apply this patch, my eDP panel light 
up normally. So

Tested-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com>

BR,
- Yakir

> ---
>
>   drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c |    2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> index 7ecb12c3..6affa75 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> @@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = {
>   	GATE(HCLK_VOP0_NOC, "hclk_vop0_noc", "hclk_vop0_pre", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
>   			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(28), 0, GFLAGS),
>   
> -	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, 0,
> +	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
>   			RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(49), 8, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 8, DFLAGS,
>   			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(10), 12, GFLAGS),
>   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421132 — Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

Hi,

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 06:46:51PM +0800, Yakir Yang wrote:
> On 06/12/2016 05:48 PM, Xing Zheng wrote:
> >The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
> >use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
> >screen.

Personally, I'd like a little better description that talks about the
rates, not just the differences between VOP0 and VOP1. Presumably the
clock rates needed by VOP0 are not achievable just by these dividers, so
we need to adjust the PLL?

FWIW, I haven't actually found this patch necessary in my own testing (I
have eDP running fine without this change), but perhaps with better
justification, this will make more sense.

> >Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>
> 
> Tested on RK3399 Kevin board, after apply this patch, my eDP panel
> light up normally. So
> 
> Tested-by: Yakir Yang <ykk@rock-chips.com>

For clarification: this patch isn't sufficient for that, right? Of
course eDP support hasn't fully landed upstream yet, but I presume you
have other changes to set the correct VOP frequencies?

Brian

> BR,
> - Yakir
> 
> >---
> >
> >  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> >index 7ecb12c3..6affa75 100644
> >--- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> >+++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> >@@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = {
> >  	GATE(HCLK_VOP0_NOC, "hclk_vop0_noc", "hclk_vop0_pre", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> >  			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(28), 0, GFLAGS),
> >-	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, 0,
> >+	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
> >  			RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(49), 8, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 8, DFLAGS,
> >  			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(10), 12, GFLAGS),
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421296 — Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 06:46:51PM +0800, Yakir Yang wrote:
>> On 06/12/2016 05:48 PM, Xing Zheng wrote:
>> >The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
>> >use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
>> >screen.
>
> Personally, I'd like a little better description that talks about the
> rates, not just the differences between VOP0 and VOP1. Presumably the
> clock rates needed by VOP0 are not achievable just by these dividers, so
> we need to adjust the PLL?

The idea is that there is a "big" VOP (vop0) and a "little" VOP
(vop1).  The "big" VOP can support higher resolutions and more output
formats but draws a little more power.  The "little" VOP supports
lower resolutions and a more limited set of formats.  If you're
curious, chapter 1 of the rk3399 TRM has a summary of the VOP features
(big and little).

In general, I think the SoC allows dynamic assignment of the VOPs to
the various video devices (eDP, DP, MIPI, HDMI).  So you can output to
two places at once and you get to pick whichever VOP you want for each
output.

The VOPs have three PLL sources: VPLL, CPLL, and GPLL.  Those PLLs are
best described as:
* CPLL - The PLL that runs at 800MHz.
* GPLL - The PLL that runs at ~600MHz (actually 594 MHz).
* VPLL - The PLL that can change rates to make various pixels clocks.

Presumably:
* The little VOP has enough features that you'd want to use it for
most internal laptop / cellphone / tablet panels.
* The big VOP is a good choice for whatever external graphics
connector you have so you can support the widest range of devices.

So if you've got a laptop that happens to have an internal panel and
an external connector, presumably:

* You want to adjust your display timings (hblank, vblank, etc) to
make sure that the internal display can be driven by dividing 800 MHz
or 594 MHz by some integral amount.  As an example, for the Starry
panel I posted recently <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9170139/>
you could make exactly 148.5 (594 / 4) by subtracting 4 from the
horizontal total and adding 15 to the vertical: 1250 * 1980 * 60 Hz =
148.5 MHz

* You want to make sure that the internal display gets assigned the
little VOP so save power / leave flexibility for the external
connector.

* You want to make sure that that the little VOP _doesn't_
accidentally get assigned VPLL even if (at boot) VPLL happens to be at
a rate that would be fine for the panel.  If you accidentally use VPLL
as a parent then you'll have a tougher time changing VPLL later when
an external display is plugged in.


NOTE: If you have things other than a laptop the decisions between
VOP0 and VOP1 get much tougher.


> FWIW, I haven't actually found this patch necessary in my own testing (I
> have eDP running fine without this change), but perhaps with better
> justification, this will make more sense.

It is probable that firmware has already set the PLL up.  It would be
interested to hack your firmware to turn off the display and see if
your behavior changes.  Alternatively, try adding something like this
to hack the VOPs:

--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
@@ -816,7 +816,7 @@
                        <&cru ACLK_VOP1>, <&cru HCLK_VOP1>,
                        <&cru ARMCLKL>, <&cru ARMCLKB>,
                        <&cru PLL_GPLL>, <&cru PLL_CPLL>,
-                       <&cru PLL_NPLL>,
+                       <&cru PLL_NPLL>, <&cru PLL_VPLL>,
                        <&cru ACLK_PERIHP>, <&cru HCLK_PERIHP>,
                        <&cru PCLK_PERIHP>,
                        <&cru ACLK_PERILP0>, <&cru HCLK_PERILP0>,
@@ -827,7 +827,7 @@
                        <400000000>,  <200000000>,
                        <816000000>, <1008000000>,
                         <594000000>,  <800000000>,
-                       <1000000000>,
+                       <1000000000>,  <900000000>,
                         <150000000>,   <75000000>,
                          <37500000>,
                         <100000000>,  <100000000>,


NOTE also: it seems terribly unlikely that adding CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT
to "vop0" would help with eDP, which really ought to be using vop1,
right?  In testing on my board, I found that eDP is in fact using vop1
with my current patch stack.

---

To summarize all that, I think that the following things would work OK
for a laptop until a better solution comes along:

* Probably VOP0 and VOP1 should both be able to change their parent's rate.

* Somehow adjust the panel rate to one that could be produced by CPLL
/ GPLL.  Presumably we'd want some code to add these extra modes to
simple-panel (?) and some code to know which mode to pick (?).

* make sure VOP0 is assigned to the panel (make this already is forced somehow?)

* make sure VOP0 starts out with the right parent (CPLL / GPLL) using
assigned-clocks in the device tree, so CCF will leave things alone.


Anyway, maybe everything I said is wrong.  If so, please correct.  ;)


-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421417

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2016, 17:48:48 schrieb Xing Zheng:
> The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
> use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
> screen.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c index 7ecb12c3..6affa75 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
> @@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch
> rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = { GATE(HCLK_VOP0_NOC, "hclk_vop0_noc",
> "hclk_vop0_pre", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(28), 0, GFLAGS),
> 
> -	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, 0,
> +	COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p,
> CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(49), 8, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 8, DFLAGS,
>  			RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(10), 12, GFLAGS),

The vpll is a possible source for multiple clocks (cci, aclk_vop0, dclk_vop0, 
clk_vop0_pwm, aclk_vop1, dclk_vop1, clk_vop1_pwm), so allowing one clock to 
hog the rate setting, might influence the other consumers of the vpll as well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1422054 — Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

Heiko,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2016, 17:48:48 schrieb Xing Zheng:
>> The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
>> use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
>> screen.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>> b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c index 7ecb12c3..6affa75 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>> @@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch
>> rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = { GATE(HCLK_VOP0_NOC, "hclk_vop0_noc",
>> "hclk_vop0_pre", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(28), 0, GFLAGS),
>>
>> -     COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, 0,
>> +     COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p,
>> CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(49), 8, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 8, DFLAGS,
>>                       RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(10), 12, GFLAGS),
>
> The vpll is a possible source for multiple clocks (cci, aclk_vop0, dclk_vop0,
> clk_vop0_pwm, aclk_vop1, dclk_vop1, clk_vop1_pwm), so allowing one clock to
> hog the rate setting, might influence the other consumers of the vpll as well.

Ah, right.  I think this gets back to your series:

  8993791 [RFC,1/3] clk: fix inconsistent use of req_rate
  8993801 [RFC,2/3] clk: adjust clocks to their requested rate after
parent changes
  8993811 [RFC,3/3] clk: rockchip: make rk3399 vop dclks keep their
rate on parent rate changes

Did you ever have any more ideas about that?  I think the last thing
in that series was a comment from me on patch #2/3.  If we can't come
up with a general CCF solution for this problem, perhaps we need to
register for notifications for all the relevant clocks that might
change?

-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1428284 — Re: [PATCH] clk: rockchip: add flag CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT for dclk_vop0_div on RK3399

Heiko,

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@sntech.de> wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2016, 17:48:48 schrieb Xing Zheng:
>> The functions and features VOP0 more complete than VOP1's, we need to
>> use it dclk_vop0_div operate VPLLI, and let VOP0 as the default primary
>> screen.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c |    2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>> b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c index 7ecb12c3..6affa75 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3399.c
>> @@ -1157,7 +1157,7 @@ static struct rockchip_clk_branch
>> rk3399_clk_branches[] __initdata = { GATE(HCLK_VOP0_NOC, "hclk_vop0_noc",
>> "hclk_vop0_pre", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(28), 0, GFLAGS),
>>
>> -     COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p, 0,
>> +     COMPOSITE(DCLK_VOP0_DIV, "dclk_vop0_div", mux_pll_src_vpll_cpll_gpll_p,
>> CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, RK3399_CLKSEL_CON(49), 8, 2, MFLAGS, 0, 8, DFLAGS,
>>                       RK3399_CLKGATE_CON(10), 12, GFLAGS),
>
> The vpll is a possible source for multiple clocks (cci, aclk_vop0, dclk_vop0,
> clk_vop0_pwm, aclk_vop1, dclk_vop1, clk_vop1_pwm), so allowing one clock to
> hog the rate setting, might influence the other consumers of the vpll as well.

OK, so let's think this through.

1. If we want to be able to support a wide variety of devices plugged
into an external display connector, we need _some_ type of PLL that
can change dynamically when the system is up.  On rk3399 there are new
fractional clocks available (yay!) but only for low speed pixel clocks
(boo!).  On rk3288 even those weren't there.

2. There are no PLLs dedicated to be used only for the pixel clock.
No matter what PLL we choose to use we _might_ end up changing some
else's rate when we change the pixel clock since someone else could be
a child.

2a) If we are careful with our clock tree we actually _can_ totally
avoid changing people's rates.  On rk3288 there's nothing else in the
system that really _needs_ NPLL and on rk3388 nothing really _needs_
VPLL.

2b) We could also try to do something dynamic like you proposed in
<https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8993811>, but presumably if a
child of NPLL/VPLL is really flexible about its rate (and thus could
handle this new rate), we'd be better off just starting that child off
parented somewhere else.  This relies on the fact that nothing really
_needs_ NPLL/VPLL.  Note that in rk3399, all muxings that include vpll
also include at least cpll and gpll; in rk3288 all muxings that
include npll also include at least cpll and gpll

2c) So, this means that if we are on a system that needs to support a
wide range of pixels clocks, we should ahead of time reparent everyone
else on another PLL and leave NPLL/VPLL as dynamic.

---

Let's think about use cases.  As far as I can think of, we have these.
Note that I'll call VPLL (rk3399) / NPLL (rk3288) the "dynamic" PLL.


A) There is some other important non-pixel-clock use of the "dynamic"
PLL where it's sub-optimal (or impossible) to use another PLL.

B) No important non-pixel-clock use for the "dynamic PLL".  Support
for arbitrary pixel clocks not important at all.

C) No important non-pixel-clock use for the "dynamic PLL".  Support
for arbitrary pixel clocks important for one display, not for the
other.

D) No important non-pixel-clock use for the "dynamic PLL".  Support
for arbitrary pixel clocks important for two displays.


I don't know of anyone in use case A), but if you do then please yell.

For B) we might have other things currently parented from the
"dynamic" PLL, but presumably these clocks are either not used or
could be reparented elsewhere.

Case C) is a device with a builtin display where the builtin display
can run fine on a pixel clock derived from CPLL or GPLL.  We might
need something like
<https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/354165/2>

Case D) is a device with two external connectors which might be used
at the same time.  You either need to pick one connector to get the
dynamic pixel clock (at boot? first come first served? userspace?) or
somehow rejigger your PLLs to allow two PLLs to be dynamic (don't
laugh, potentially GPLL could run at 1188 MHz and then you could
divide by 3 and get roughly 396 MHz, so you could actually just parent
everything on GPLL and make CPLL a second dynamic PLL).

---

OK, so what do we do?  Personally I can't see us coming up with a
one-size fits all approach, can you?  That means some type of
configuration.  ...and, as seen by the assigned-clocks device tree
binding, _some_ types of configuration is allowed in the device tree
presuming it is well thought out and describing how the designers of
the hardware "intended" it to be used.

So maybe:

i) Unless there's a counter example, I see no reason to let any clocks
other than the VOP display clocks parent on the "dynamic" PLL.  If we
later find a counter example then presumably we should add a device
tree property on that board.  We could have code at boot time that
goes through all clocks parented on "dynamic" PLL and reparents them
(trying to keep the rate?), they disallows future muxing to the
"dynamic" PLL.

ii) It seems sane to me to add a device tree property to the board
that will effectively enable CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT on one of the
dclk_vop clocks and forcing it to the "dynamic" PLL (no
auto-remuxing).  Maybe we would add something to the HDMI node, for
instance, like "rockchip,intended-dclk-pll = <&...>".  Then somehow
this would need to affect whichever VOP was assigned to HDMI.

iii) If later someone can propose how to handle D) above, we can
handle it then.  Until a solution is proposed those boards would work
like today.

---

OK, what was long.  Thoughts?


-Doug

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web