[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC v2 1/1] drm/lima: Add optional devfreq support
On 2019-12-29 11:19 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Robin,
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:58 PM Robin Murphy <> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>> On 2019-12-27 5:37 pm, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>> Most platforms with a Mali-400 or Mali-450 GPU also have support for
>>> changing the GPU clock frequency. Add devfreq support so the GPU clock
>>> rate is updated based on the actual GPU usage when the
>>> "operating-points-v2" property is present in the board.dts.
>>> The actual devfreq code is taken from panfrost_devfreq.c and modified so
>>> it matches what the lima hardware needs:
>>> - a call to dev_pm_opp_set_clkname() during initialization because there
>>> are two clocks on Mali-4x0 IPs. "core" is the one that actually clocks
>>> the GPU so we need to control it using devfreq.
>>> - locking when reading or writing the devfreq statistics because (unlike
>>> than panfrost) we have multiple PP and GP IRQs which may finish jobs
>>> concurrently.
>> I gave this a quick try on my RK3328, and the clock scaling indeed kicks
>> in nicely on the glmark2 scenes that struggle, however something appears
>> to be missing in terms of regulator association, as the appropriate OPP
>> voltages aren't reflected in the GPU supply (fortunately the initial
>> voltage seems close enough to that of the highest OPP not to cause major
>> problems, on my box at least). With panfrost on RK3399 I do see the
>> supply voltage scaling accordingly, but I don't know my way around
>> devfreq well enough to know what matters in the difference :/
> first of all: thank you for trying this out! :-)
> does your kernel include commit 221bc77914cbcc ("drm/panfrost: Use
> generic code for devfreq") for your panfrost test?
> if I understand the devfreq API correct then I suspect with that
> commit panfrost also won't change the voltage anymore.

Oh, you're quite right - I was already considering that change as
ancient history, but indeed it's only in 5.5-rc, while that board is
still on 5.4.y release kernels. No wonder I couldn't make sense of how
the (current) code could possibly be working :)

I'll try the latest -rc kernel tomorrow to confirm (now that PCIe is
hopefully fixed), but I'm already fairly confident you've called it


> this is probably due to a missing call to dev_pm_opp_set_regulators()
> which is supposed to attach the regulator to the devfreq instance.
> I didn't notice this yet because on Amlogic SoCs the voltage is the
> same for all OPPs.
> I'll debug this in the next days and send an updated patch (and drop
> the RFC prefix if there are no more comments).
> Regards
> Martin

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-30 01:48    [W:0.077 / U:1.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site