lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 5/5] rockchip/soc/drivers: Add DTPM description for rk3399
From

Hi Heiko,

thanks for your comments

On 28/01/2022 11:19, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 25. Januar 2022, 18:18:09 CET schrieb Daniel Lezcano:
>> The DTPM framework does support now the hierarchy description.
>>
>> The platform specific code can call the hierarchy creation function
>> with an array of struct dtpm_node pointing to their parent.
>>
>> This patch provides a description of the big / Little CPUs and the
>> GPU and tie them together under a virtual 'package' name. Only rk3399 is
>> described now.
>>
>> The description could be extended in the future with the memory
>> controller with devfreq.
>>
>> The description is always a module and it describes the soft
>> dependencies. The userspace has to load the softdeps module in the
>> right order.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>

[ ... ]

>> +static struct dtpm_node __initdata rk3399_hierarchy[] = {
>
> The driver is tristate so buildable as module but uses __initdata.
> As it depends on panfrost (which also can be a module) you
> probably want a "__initdata_or_module" here .

Well, actually the dependency is wrong.

It should be:

depends on DTPM && m

It will be compiled always as a module.

Referring to the Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst

"After boot, the kernel frees up a special section; functions marked with
``__init`` and data structures marked with ``__initdata`` are dropped
after boot is complete: similarly modules discard this memory after
initialization."

So after the module is loaded and the hierarchy is created, nothing will
stay in memory (except the future module exit function)


>> + [0]{ .name = "rk3399",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_VIRTUAL },
>> + [1]{ .name = "package",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_VIRTUAL,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[0] },
>> + [2]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@0",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [3]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@1",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [4]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@2",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [5]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@3",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [6]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@100",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [7]{ .name = "/cpus/cpu@101",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [8]{ .name = "/gpu@ff9a0000",
>> + .type = DTPM_NODE_DT,
>> + .parent = &rk3399_hierarchy[1] },
>> + [9]{ },
>
> hmm, do we want a "/* sentinel */" inside the empty last entry?
> I think that is pretty common to denote the "this one is the last entry"
> of a dynamic list ;-)

Sure

>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct of_device_id __initdata rockchip_dtpm_match_table[] = {
>> + { .compatible = "rockchip,rk3399", .data = rk3399_hierarchy },
>> + {},
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int __init rockchip_dtpm_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return dtpm_create_hierarchy(rockchip_dtpm_match_table);
>> +}
>> +module_init(rockchip_dtpm_init);
>
> Just for my understanding what happens on driver unload?

ATM it is not possible to unload it.

A second series with the hierarchy destruction will follow once this
series is merged. The module unloading will be added here.


--
<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: 2022-01-28 16:13    [W:0.128 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site