| Message ID | 1371739146-32639-2-git-send-email-f.fainelli@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:39:04PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote: > The current topology code will only attempt to parse a "clock-frequency" > property for a given CPU node. Some platforms such as the ecx-2000 > provide a clock node. Change the logic to first look for a clock node, > and if we fail, fallback to parsing a "clock-frequency" property. To > avoid unnecessary casting, change rate from u32 to unsigned long, and > introduce the "prop" variable to hold the contents of the > "clock-frequency" property. > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > --- > arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > index c5a5954..8f340a1 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > #include <linux/of.h> > #include <linux/sched.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > +#include <linux/clk.h> > > #include <asm/cputype.h> > #include <asm/topology.h> > @@ -104,7 +105,9 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) > cpu_capacity = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_NOWAIT); > > while ((cn = of_find_node_by_type(cn, "cpu"))) { > - const u32 *rate, *reg; > + const u32 *prop, *reg; > + unsigned long rate; > + struct clk *cpu_clk; > int len; > > if (cpu >= num_possible_cpus()) > @@ -117,11 +120,17 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) > if (cpu_eff->compatible == NULL) > continue; > > - rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len); > - if (!rate || len != 4) { > - pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n", > - cn->full_name); > - continue; > + cpu_clk = of_clk_get(cn, 0); > + if (IS_ERR(cpu_clk)) { > + prop = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len); > + if (!prop || len != 4) { > + pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n", > + cn->full_name); > + continue; > + } > + rate = be32_to_cpup(prop); > + } else { > + rate = clk_get_rate(cpu_clk); I am not questioning whether adding a "clocks" property is proper or not, but let me say cpu related info and parsing are already scattered all over the place and this is wrong. We are currently trying to consolidate CPU related info in a single structure in the kernel, and then this code can become a consumer of that data. As to the "clocks" property as I mentioned in another reply, that requires more thought. Lorenzo
2013/6/21 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 03:39:04PM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> The current topology code will only attempt to parse a "clock-frequency" >> property for a given CPU node. Some platforms such as the ecx-2000 >> provide a clock node. Change the logic to first look for a clock node, >> and if we fail, fallback to parsing a "clock-frequency" property. To >> avoid unnecessary casting, change rate from u32 to unsigned long, and >> introduce the "prop" variable to hold the contents of the >> "clock-frequency" property. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> index c5a5954..8f340a1 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c >> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ >> #include <linux/of.h> >> #include <linux/sched.h> >> #include <linux/slab.h> >> +#include <linux/clk.h> >> >> #include <asm/cputype.h> >> #include <asm/topology.h> >> @@ -104,7 +105,9 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) >> cpu_capacity = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_NOWAIT); >> >> while ((cn = of_find_node_by_type(cn, "cpu"))) { >> - const u32 *rate, *reg; >> + const u32 *prop, *reg; >> + unsigned long rate; >> + struct clk *cpu_clk; >> int len; >> >> if (cpu >= num_possible_cpus()) >> @@ -117,11 +120,17 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) >> if (cpu_eff->compatible == NULL) >> continue; >> >> - rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len); >> - if (!rate || len != 4) { >> - pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n", >> - cn->full_name); >> - continue; >> + cpu_clk = of_clk_get(cn, 0); >> + if (IS_ERR(cpu_clk)) { >> + prop = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len); >> + if (!prop || len != 4) { >> + pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n", >> + cn->full_name); >> + continue; >> + } >> + rate = be32_to_cpup(prop); >> + } else { >> + rate = clk_get_rate(cpu_clk); > > I am not questioning whether adding a "clocks" property is proper or > not, but let me say cpu related info and parsing are already scattered > all over the place and this is wrong. We are currently trying to > consolidate CPU related info in a single structure in the kernel, and > then this code can become a consumer of that data. Fine, this makes sense, although it was probably hard to know it without you telling it first. > As to the "clocks" > property as I mentioned in another reply, that requires more thought. Fair enough. -- Florian
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c index c5a5954..8f340a1 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ #include <linux/of.h> #include <linux/sched.h> #include <linux/slab.h> +#include <linux/clk.h> #include <asm/cputype.h> #include <asm/topology.h> @@ -104,7 +105,9 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) cpu_capacity = kzalloc(alloc_size, GFP_NOWAIT); while ((cn = of_find_node_by_type(cn, "cpu"))) { - const u32 *rate, *reg; + const u32 *prop, *reg; + unsigned long rate; + struct clk *cpu_clk; int len; if (cpu >= num_possible_cpus()) @@ -117,11 +120,17 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) if (cpu_eff->compatible == NULL) continue; - rate = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len); - if (!rate || len != 4) { - pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n", - cn->full_name); - continue; + cpu_clk = of_clk_get(cn, 0); + if (IS_ERR(cpu_clk)) { + prop = of_get_property(cn, "clock-frequency", &len); + if (!prop || len != 4) { + pr_err("%s missing clock-frequency property\n", + cn->full_name); + continue; + } + rate = be32_to_cpup(prop); + } else { + rate = clk_get_rate(cpu_clk); } reg = of_get_property(cn, "reg", &len); @@ -130,7 +139,7 @@ static void __init parse_dt_topology(void) continue; } - capacity = ((be32_to_cpup(rate)) >> 20) * cpu_eff->efficiency; + capacity = (rate >> 20) * cpu_eff->efficiency; /* Save min capacity of the system */ if (capacity < min_capacity)
The current topology code will only attempt to parse a "clock-frequency" property for a given CPU node. Some platforms such as the ecx-2000 provide a clock node. Change the logic to first look for a clock node, and if we fail, fallback to parsing a "clock-frequency" property. To avoid unnecessary casting, change rate from u32 to unsigned long, and introduce the "prop" variable to hold the contents of the "clock-frequency" property. Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)