lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/7] clocksource/drivers: Add a new driver for the Atmel ARM TC blocks
From
Date
On 25/09/2018 23:16, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 24/09/2018 03:59:55+0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 13/09/2018 13:30, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> Add a driver for the Atmel Timer Counter Blocks. This driver provides a
>>> clocksource and two clockevent devices.
>>>
>>> One of the clockevent device is linked to the clocksource counter and so it
>>> will run at the same frequency. This will be used when there is only on TCB
>>> channel available for timers.
>>>
>>> The other clockevent device runs on a separate TCB channel when available.
>>>
>>> This driver uses regmap and syscon to be able to probe early in the boot
>>> and avoid having to switch on the TCB clocksource later.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get it. Can you elaborate?
>>
>
> The current existing way of sharing TCB channels is getting probed to
> late in the boot process to be used as the clocksource so currently, the
> PIT is necessary to act as the clocksource until the TCB clocksource can
> be probed.
>
> This is a big issue for SoCs without a PIT, they simply can't boot.

I'm still missing the point. The timer (clocksource + clocksource) is
probed very early with TIMER_OF_DECLARE.


> This also solves:
> 33d8c15559df Revert "clocksource/drivers/tcb_clksrc: Use 32 bit tcb as sched_clock"
> 7b9f1d16e6d1 clocksource/drivers/tcb_clksrc: Use 32 bit tcb as sched_clock
>
>
>>> Using regmap also
>>> means that unused TCB channels may be used by other drivers (PWM for
>>> example). read/writel are still used to access channel specific registers
>>> to avoid the performance impact of regmap (mainly locking).
>>
>> I don't get the regmap reasoning here.
>
> Because there are 3 channels per TCB, some TCB can have channels handled
> by different drivers (say channel 0 for clocksource, channel 1 for
> clockevent and channel 2 for PWM). There are configuration registers that
> are shared for all the channels and so the access needs to be handled
> properly. But as we discussed on a previous version of the patch, we
> don't want to lock/unlock each time we read the clocksource so for the
> channel specific registers, readl/writel is used directly.

Can you point me to the code where we have racy access to the
ATMEL_TC_BMR register ?


>> My main concern with this driver is the 16bits chained support. See
>> below in the comments.
>>
>>
>>> +struct atmel_tcb_clksrc {
>>> + struct clocksource clksrc;
>>> + struct clock_event_device clkevt;
>>> + struct regmap *regmap;
>>> + void __iomem *base;
>>> + struct clk *clk[2];
>>> + char name[20];
>>
>> You can reasonably remove this field and use directly the ones in the
>> clocksrc/evt.
>>
>
> name in struct clocksource is a pointer to a string, we still need a
> place to store that string.

Come on!

char *name = kasprintf(...);

tc.clkevt.name = name;
tc.clksrc.name = name;

no need to add a specific field for this.

Alternatively, you can make use of the
kbasename(node->parent->full_name) only without the channel numbering.

>>> + int channels[2];
>>> + int bits;
>>> + int irq;
>>
>> After removing the request_irq/free_irq calls below (see comment), this
>> field can be removed.
>>
>>> + struct {
>>> + u32 cmr;
>>> + u32 imr;
>>> + u32 rc;
>>> + bool clken;
>>
>> Not sure clken is needed, 16/32 is enough information.
>>
>
> This as nothing to do with 16/32. We always need to now whether the
> timer was running or not.

Mmh, not sure why I said that. Anyway ...

>>> + } cache[2];
>>> + u32 bmr_cache;
>>
>> Are you sure you should save the bmr content ?
>>
>
> We need to restore at least part of it. We may need to be more clever
> about it but this is the current behaviour and it has been working fine.
>
>>> + bool registered;
>>> + bool clk_enabled;
>>
>> Not used.
>>
>
> I guess they are use in the following patch.

Move them to the patch making use of it.

>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static struct atmel_tcb_clksrc tc;
>>> +
>>> +static struct clk *tcb_clk_get(struct device_node *node, int channel)
>>> +{
>>> + struct clk *clk;
>>> + char clk_name[] = "t0_clk";
>>> +
>>> + clk_name[1] += channel;
>>> + clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, clk_name);
>>> + if (!IS_ERR(clk))
>>> + return clk;
>>> +
>>> + return of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "t0_clk");
>>
>> Can you explain why returning "t0_clk" is better than returning an error?
>>
>
> This is the current tclib behavior and doing otherwise would break the
> DT ABI.
> The reason for this behavior is that some TCB may have a clock
> per channel while others have one clock for the whole block.

What are the DT ABI? Can you point the snippets ?


>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/*
>>> + * Clocksource and clockevent using the same channel(s)
>>> + */
>>> +static u64 tc_get_cycles(struct clocksource *cs)
>>> +{
>>> + u32 lower, upper;
>>> +
>>> + do {
>>> + upper = readl_relaxed(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_CV(tc.channels[1]));
>>> + lower = readl_relaxed(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_CV(tc.channels[0]));
>>> + } while (upper != readl_relaxed(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_CV(tc.channels[1])));
>>> +
>>> + return (upper << 16) | lower;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static u64 tc_get_cycles32(struct clocksource *cs)
>>> +{
>>> + return readl_relaxed(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_CV(tc.channels[0]));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static u64 notrace tc_sched_clock_read(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return tc_get_cycles(&tc.clksrc);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static u64 notrace tc_sched_clock_read32(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return tc_get_cycles32(&tc.clksrc);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int tcb_clkevt_next_event(unsigned long delta,
>>> + struct clock_event_device *d)
>>> +{
>>> + u32 old, next, cur;
>>> +
>>> + old = readl(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_CV(tc.channels[0]));
>>> + next = old + delta;
>>> + writel(next, tc.base + ATMEL_TC_RC(tc.channels[0]));
>>> + cur = readl(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_CV(tc.channels[0]));
>>> +
>>> + /* check whether the delta elapsed while setting the register */
>>> + if ((next < old && cur < old && cur > next) ||
>>> + (next > old && (cur < old || cur > next))) {
>>> + /*
>>> + * Clear the CPCS bit in the status register to avoid
>>> + * generating a spurious interrupt next time a valid
>>> + * timer event is configured.
>>> + */
>>> + old = readl(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_SR(tc.channels[0]));
>>> + return -ETIME;
>>> + }
>>>> + writel(ATMEL_TC_CPCS, tc.base + ATMEL_TC_IER(tc.channels[0]));
>>
>>
>> How this is compatible with 16bits as defined in the init function ?
>>
>
> This is working fine because it is the lower bits channel and in that
> case, clockevents_config_and_register is call with the proper mask (16
> lower bits sets).
>
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static irqreturn_t tc_clkevt_irq(int irq, void *handle)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned int sr;
>>> +
>>> + sr = readl(tc.base + ATMEL_TC_SR(tc.channels[0]));
>>> + if (sr & ATMEL_TC_CPCS) {
>>> + tc.clkevt.event_handler(&tc.clkevt);
>>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return IRQ_NONE;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int tcb_clkevt_oneshot(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + if (clockevent_state_oneshot(dev))
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Because both clockevent devices may share the same IRQ, we don't want
>>> + * the less likely one to stay requested
>>> + */
>>> + return request_irq(tc.irq, tc_clkevt_irq, IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_SHARED,
>>> + tc.name, &tc);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int tcb_clkevt_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *dev)
>>> +{
>>> + writel(0xff, tc.base + ATMEL_TC_IDR(tc.channels[0]));
>>> + if (tc.bits == 16)
>>> + writel(0xff, tc.base + ATMEL_TC_IDR(tc.channels[1]));
>>> +
>>> + if (!clockevent_state_detached(dev))
>>> + free_irq(tc.irq, &tc);
>>
>> Why are you requesting and freeing the irq instead of using the
>> disable/enable register operations ?
>
> To avoid going through two interrupt handlers when we know that one is
> never used (that is when we have a separate channel for the clockevent,
> see following patch).

This explanation is not convincing. I will let you look at the
request_irq / free_irq internals (including __setup_irq) to figure out
why this is not possible.


>>> + /* How fast will we be counting? Pick something over 5 MHz. */
>>> + rate = (u32)clk_get_rate(tc.clk[0]);
>>> + for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
>>> + unsigned int divisor = atmel_tc_divisors[i];
>>> + unsigned int tmp;
>>> +
>>> + if (!divisor)
>>> + continue;
>>
>> I suppose you meant here 'break' ? Use atmel_tc_divisors[] = { 2, 8, 32,
>> 128 }; And then the ARRAY_SIZE macro.
>>
>>> + tmp = rate / divisor;
>>> + pr_debug("TC: %u / %-3u [%d] --> %u\n", rate, divisor, i, tmp);
>>> + if (best_divisor_idx > 0) {
>>> + if (tmp < 5 * 1000 * 1000)
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>>> + divided_rate = tmp;
>>> + best_divisor_idx = i;
>>
>> What is a best divisor ? The highest one or the one closer to 5MHz ?
>>
>
> The whole divisor selection is coming for the previous driver and I'd
> rather not change it at this point, this is the topic of an other
> series.
> It chooses the first divisor that gives a counting rate over 5MHz

So why not stop the loop as soon as the rate / divisor is >= to 5MHz ?

>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (tc.bits == 32) {
>>> + tc.clksrc.read = tc_get_cycles32;
>>> + tcb_setup_single_chan(&tc, best_divisor_idx);
>>> + tc_sched_clock = tc_sched_clock_read32;
>>> + snprintf(tc.name, sizeof(tc.name), "%s:%d",
>>> + kbasename(node->parent->full_name), tc.channels[0]);
>>> + } else {
>>> + tc.clk[1] = tcb_clk_get(node, tc.channels[1]);
>>> + if (IS_ERR(tc.clk[1]))
>>> + goto err_disable_t0;
>>
>> This is very confusing. If the function tcb_clk_get() fails with this
>> channel, it will return "t0_clk" and will be used here ? Why ?
>>
>
> See earlier explanation.
>
>>> + err = clk_prepare_enable(tc.clk[1]);
>>> + if (err) {
>>> + pr_debug("can't enable T1 clk\n");
>>> + goto err_clk1;
>>> + }
>>> + tc.clksrc.read = tc_get_cycles,
>>> + tcb_setup_dual_chan(&tc, best_divisor_idx);
>>> + tc_sched_clock = tc_sched_clock_read;
>>> + snprintf(tc.name, sizeof(tc.name), "%s:%d,%d",
>>> + kbasename(node->parent->full_name), tc.channels[0],
>>> + tc.channels[1]);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + pr_debug("%s at %d.%03d MHz\n", tc.name,
>>> + divided_rate / 1000000,
>>> + ((divided_rate + 500000) % 1000000) / 1000);
>>
>> Using two channels to emulate a 32bits timer has a significant cost,
>> especially in the sched_clock function which is part of the hot kernel
>> path. In addition it makes the code less maintainable and readable.
>>
>> Why don't you just stick to a specific rate with the prescalar value and
>> reduce the rating of the timer ? (example in the stm32 timer,
>> stm32_timer_set_prescaler and init function).
>>
>> It will be less precise (thus the lower rating) but will make the system
>> faster by preventing multiple register reads in the sched_clock.
>>
>> Is it an acceptable trade-off ?
>>
>
> Not at this point, the goal is to not change the current behaviour.
> Some customer rely on the fast timer (they are bitbanging some RF
> protocols) and counting at more that 5MHz using a 16 bit timer is
> definitively too fast.

Not if you use the prescalar.

> This is something that could be changed once we implement timer rate
> selection (but I doubt it will make the code more readable).
>
> I'm not saying we shouldn't question what was done 10 years ago but I'd
> rather not change it is this series.
>
> Also, the goal is to get rid of the tcb_clksrc driver now that avr32 is
> gone. This will be done once the pwm driver is converted (I did that in
> v1).

You want to get rid of the tcb_clksrc by adding a new driver which is
very similar without taking into consideration to do a move to something
cleaner and putting in question what was already done.



>>> + tcb_base = of_iomap(node->parent, 0);
>>> + if (!tcb_base) {
>>> + pr_err("%s +%d %s\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, __func__);
>>
>> Remove those debug information and replace them by a proper error message.
>>
>
> My mistake, this will be simply removed.
>
>>> + return -ENXIO;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + match = of_match_node(atmel_tcb_dt_ids, node->parent);
>>> + bits = (uintptr_t)match->data;
>>> +
>>> + err = of_property_read_u32_index(node, "reg", 0, &channel);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + return err;
>>> +
>>> + irq = of_irq_get(node->parent, channel);
>>> + if (irq < 0) {
>>
>> if (irq <= 0) {
>>
>>> + irq = of_irq_get(node->parent, 0);
>>
>> Why ?
>>
>
> See the binding,

Ok, can you point me to the code ?

> the timer is a child of the TCB and the TCB node has
> the irq info. So, the TCB is defined in the dtsi and the child nodes are
> in the board dts.
>
>>> + if (irq < 0)
>>
>> if (irq <= 0) {
>>
>>> + return irq;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (bits == 16) {
>>> + of_property_read_u32_index(node, "reg", 1, &chan1);
>>> + if (chan1 == -1) {
>>> + pr_err("%s: clocksource needs two channels\n",
>>> + node->parent->full_name);
>>
>> Think about it. The code is giving up at this point in the boot process.
>> So of two things, you consider there is an alternate clocksource /
>> clockevent or the system hangs:
>>
>> - If there is an alternate clocksource why support 32bits by chaining
>> the channels with the cost it introduces instead of using the alternate
>> one ?
>>
>
> The PIT is almost always the worse clocksource as it is very slow.

What is slow here ?

>> - If there is no alternate clocksource why not support a 16bits less
>> precise timer and give up with the 32bits emulation and the complexity
>> it introduces in this driver ?
>>
>
> If there is not alternate clocksource, the TCB is 32bit.





--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-01 23:24    [W:0.112 / U:11.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site