[PATCH v2 0/3] nvmem: qfprom: Add binding updates and power-domain handling

[PATCH v2 0/3] nvmem: qfprom: Add binding updates and power-domain handling

[Rajendra Nayak]

v2:
* pm_runtime calls made unconditionally, should work even without the power-domains property in DT
* Added the missing pm_runtime_disable() handling
* DT patch rebased on msm/for-next

--
qfprom devices on sc7280 have an additional requirement to vote on a power-domain
performance state to reliably blow fuses. Add the binding updates and handle this in
the driver, also add the DT node for sc7280 platform.

Rajendra Nayak (3):
  dt-bindings: nvmem: qfprom: Add optional power-domains property
  nvmem: qfprom: sc7280: Handle the additional power-domains vote
  arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add qfprom node

 .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml     |  3 +++
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi               | 13 +++++++++++
 drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c                             | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+)

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: nvmem: qfprom: Add optional power-domains property

[Rajendra Nayak]

qfprom devices on some SoCs need to vote on the performance state
of a power-domain, so add the power-domains optional property to the
bindings

Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
index 861b205..a498a08 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ properties:
   vcc-supply:
     description: Our power supply.
 
+  power-domains:
+    description: A phandle to a power domain node.
+
   # Needed if any child nodes are present.
   "#address-cells":
     const: 1
-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: nvmem: qfprom: Add optional power-domains property

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:01 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> qfprom devices on some SoCs need to vote on the performance state
> of a power-domain, so add the power-domains optional property to the
> bindings
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
> index 861b205..a498a08 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ properties:
>    vcc-supply:
>      description: Our power supply.
>
> +  power-domains:
> +    description: A phandle to a power domain node.
> +

I'm trying to channel my inner Rob here by saying that this
description doesn't add anything and this should just be:

power-domains:
  maxItems: 1

Here's an example of Rob saying this:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210712151322.GA1931925@robh.at.kernel.org/

Other than that, feel free to add my "Reviewed-by" tag.

-Doug

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: nvmem: qfprom: Add optional power-domains property

[Rajendra Nayak]

On 7/29/2021 9:49 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:01 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> qfprom devices on some SoCs need to vote on the performance state
>> of a power-domain, so add the power-domains optional property to the
>> bindings
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml | 3 +++
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
>> index 861b205..a498a08 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/qcom,qfprom.yaml
>> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ properties:
>>     vcc-supply:
>>       description: Our power supply.
>>
>> +  power-domains:
>> +    description: A phandle to a power domain node.
>> +
> 
> I'm trying to channel my inner Rob here by saying that this
> description doesn't add anything and this should just be:

Thanks, I trust the inner Rob in you :), so I'll drop the description
and repost.

> 
> power-domains:
>    maxItems: 1
> 
> Here's an example of Rob saying this:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20210712151322.GA1931925@robh.at.kernel.org/
> 
> Other than that, feel free to add my "Reviewed-by" tag.
> 
> -Doug
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH v2 2/3] nvmem: qfprom: sc7280: Handle the additional power-domains vote

[Rajendra Nayak]

On sc7280, to reliably blow fuses, we need an additional vote
on max performance state of 'MX' power-domain.
Add support for power-domain performance state voting in the
driver.

Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
---
 drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
index 81fbad5..b5f27df 100644
--- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
+++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
 #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
 #include <linux/nvmem-provider.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
+#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
+#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
 #include <linux/property.h>
 #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
 
@@ -139,6 +141,9 @@ static void qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
 {
 	int ret;
 
+	dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(priv->dev, 0);
+	pm_runtime_put(priv->dev);
+
 	/*
 	 * This may be a shared rail and may be able to run at a lower rate
 	 * when we're not blowing fuses.  At the moment, the regulator framework
@@ -212,6 +217,14 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
 		goto err_clk_rate_set;
 	}
 
+	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(priv->dev);
+	if (ret < 0) {
+		pm_runtime_put_noidle(priv->dev);
+		dev_err(priv->dev, "Failed to enable power-domain\n");
+		goto err_reg_enable;
+	}
+	dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(priv->dev, INT_MAX);
+
 	old->timer_val = readl(priv->qfpconf + QFPROM_BLOW_TIMER_OFFSET);
 	old->accel_val = readl(priv->qfpconf + QFPROM_ACCEL_OFFSET);
 	writel(priv->soc_data->qfprom_blow_timer_value,
@@ -221,6 +234,8 @@ static int qfprom_enable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
 
 	return 0;
 
+err_reg_enable:
+	regulator_disable(priv->vcc);
 err_clk_rate_set:
 	clk_set_rate(priv->secclk, old->clk_rate);
 err_clk_prepared:
@@ -320,6 +335,11 @@ static int qfprom_reg_read(void *context,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void qfprom_runtime_disable(void *data)
+{
+	pm_runtime_disable(data);
+}
+
 static const struct qfprom_soc_data qfprom_7_8_data = {
 	.accel_value = 0xD10,
 	.qfprom_blow_timer_value = 25,
@@ -420,6 +440,12 @@ static int qfprom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 			econfig.reg_write = qfprom_reg_write;
 	}
 
+	ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, qfprom_runtime_disable, dev);
+	if (ret)
+		return ret;
+
+	pm_runtime_enable(dev);
+
 	nvmem = devm_nvmem_register(dev, &econfig);
 
 	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(nvmem);
-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvmem: qfprom: sc7280: Handle the additional power-domains vote

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:01 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> On sc7280, to reliably blow fuses, we need an additional vote
> on max performance state of 'MX' power-domain.
> Add support for power-domain performance state voting in the
> driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> index 81fbad5..b5f27df 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
>  #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>  #include <linux/nvmem-provider.h>
>  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>  #include <linux/property.h>
>  #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>
> @@ -139,6 +141,9 @@ static void qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
>  {
>         int ret;
>
> +       dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(priv->dev, 0);
> +       pm_runtime_put(priv->dev);

To me it feels as if this should be at the end of the function rather
than the beginning. I guess it doesn't matter (?), but it feels wrong
that we have writes to the register space after we're don't a
pm_runtime_put().


> @@ -420,6 +440,12 @@ static int qfprom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                         econfig.reg_write = qfprom_reg_write;
>         }
>
> +       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, qfprom_runtime_disable, dev);
> +       if (ret)
> +               return ret;
> +
> +       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> +

Swap the order of the two. IOW first pm_runtime_enable(), then
devm_add_action_or_reset(). Specifically the "_or_reset" means that if
you fail to add the action (AKA devm_add_action() fails to allocate
the tiny amount of memory it needs) it will actually _call_ the
action. That means that in your code if the memory allocation fails
you'll call pm_runtime_disable() without the corresponding
pm_runtime_enable().


Other than those two issues this looks good to me. Feel free to add my
Reviewed-by when you fix them.

-Doug

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvmem: qfprom: sc7280: Handle the additional power-domains vote

[Rajendra Nayak]

On 7/29/2021 9:37 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:01 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> On sc7280, to reliably blow fuses, we need an additional vote
>> on max performance state of 'MX' power-domain.
>> Add support for power-domain performance state voting in the
>> driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
>> index 81fbad5..b5f27df 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/qfprom.c
>> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
>>   #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>>   #include <linux/nvmem-provider.h>
>>   #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>>   #include <linux/property.h>
>>   #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
>>
>> @@ -139,6 +141,9 @@ static void qfprom_disable_fuse_blowing(const struct qfprom_priv *priv,
>>   {
>>          int ret;
>>
>> +       dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(priv->dev, 0);
>> +       pm_runtime_put(priv->dev);
> 
> To me it feels as if this should be at the end of the function rather
> than the beginning. I guess it doesn't matter (?), but it feels wrong
> that we have writes to the register space after we're don't a
> pm_runtime_put().

Right, I was confused with this too when I saw that the other resources
(regulator/clocks) were also turned off before we write into the
register space. And then looking into the driver I realized its perhaps because
the resources are needed only for the 'raw' writes and the 'conf'
read/writes can happen regardless. I'll just fix that up and put the register
writes before we really turn off any resources to avoid confusion.

> 
> 
>> @@ -420,6 +440,12 @@ static int qfprom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>                          econfig.reg_write = qfprom_reg_write;
>>          }
>>
>> +       ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, qfprom_runtime_disable, dev);
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>> +       pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>> +
> 
> Swap the order of the two. IOW first pm_runtime_enable(), then
> devm_add_action_or_reset(). Specifically the "_or_reset" means that if
> you fail to add the action (AKA devm_add_action() fails to allocate
> the tiny amount of memory it needs) it will actually _call_ the
> action. 

Ah, I didn't know that, thanks, I'll fix the order up and repost.

> That means that in your code if the memory allocation fails
> you'll call pm_runtime_disable() without the corresponding
> pm_runtime_enable().
> 
> 
> Other than those two issues this looks good to me. Feel free to add my
> Reviewed-by when you fix them.

Thanks.

> 
> -Doug
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

[PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add qfprom node

[Rajendra Nayak]

Add the qfprom node and its properties for the sc7280 SoC.

Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 13 +++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
index 029723a..e87b210 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
@@ -442,6 +442,19 @@
 			#mbox-cells = <2>;
 		};
 
+		qfprom: efuse@784000 {
+			compatible = "qcom,sc7280-qfprom", "qcom,qfprom";
+			reg = <0 0x00784000 0 0xa20>,
+			      <0 0x00780000 0 0xa20>,
+			      <0 0x00782000 0 0x120>,
+			      <0 0x00786000 0 0x1fff>;
+			clocks = <&gcc GCC_SEC_CTRL_CLK_SRC>;
+			clock-names = "core";
+			power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7280_MX>;
+			#address-cells = <1>;
+			#size-cells = <1>;
+		};
+
 		sdhc_1: sdhci@7c4000 {
 			compatible = "qcom,sc7280-sdhci", "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5";
 			status = "disabled";
-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add qfprom node

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:01 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Add the qfprom node and its properties for the sc7280 SoC.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)

Peachy! I guess a future patch will add things like USB2 trim and GPU
speed bin definitions?

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add qfprom node

[Rajendra Nayak]

On 7/29/2021 9:54 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 5:01 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> Add the qfprom node and its properties for the sc7280 SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi | 13 +++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> Peachy! I guess a future patch will add things like USB2 trim and GPU
> speed bin definitions?

Right, I left those out for a future patch.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>

Thanks
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation