From: Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@oss.nxp.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Fossati <thomas.fossati@linaro.org>,
Larisa Grigore <Larisa.Grigore@nxp.com>,
Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@nxp.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
"moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
"moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
NXP S32 Linux Team <s32@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clocksource/drivers/nxp-timer: Add the System Timer Module for the s32g platform
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:31:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6b48ad6a-2b45-455f-1ba8-3d90deb516f4@oss.nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16d02edf-181e-42a1-8b0f-cdef61109fbf@linaro.org>
On 3/26/2025 12:31 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 26/03/2025 10:57, Ghennadi Procopciuc wrote:
>> On 3/26/2025 11:19 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2025 08:44, Ghennadi Procopciuc wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2025 3:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> On 25/03/2025 14:21, Ghennadi Procopciuc wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/25/2025 2:51 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +static int __init nxp_stm_timer_probe(struct platform_device
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *pdev)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct stm_instances *stm_instances;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + const char *name = of_node_full_name(np);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + void __iomem *base;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + int irq, ret;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + struct clk *clk;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + stm_instances =
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (typeof(stm_instances))of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (!stm_instances) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "No STM instances associated with a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cpu");
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + base = devm_of_iomap(dev, np, 0, NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (IS_ERR(base)) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to iomap %pOFn\n", np);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return PTR_ERR(base);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (irq <= 0) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to parse and map IRQ: %d\n",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From commit description:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first probed STM is used as a clocksource, the second
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> broadcast timer and the rest are used as a clockevent with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> affinity set to a CPU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is the interrupt mandatory when the node is probed as a
>>>>>>>>>>>> clocksource?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It relies on the DT description and it does not hurt to have a
>>>>>>>>>>> consistent code path for clockevent / clocksource even if the
>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>> is not requested for the clocksource later.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If so, in my opinion, it would make sense to use the same STM
>>>>>>>>>> instance
>>>>>>>>>> for both the clocksource and broadcast clockevent, as both
>>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> be accommodated within a single STM instance, which will help
>>>>>>>>>> reduce
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> number of STM instances used.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The broadcast timer is stopped when it is unused which is the
>>>>>>>>> case for
>>>>>>>>> the s32 because there are no idle state powering down the local
>>>>>>>>> timers.
>>>>>>>>> They have to have be separated.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This wouldn't be the case if the STM is kept running/counting
>>>>>>>> during
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> clock event setup, with only the clock event interrupt being
>>>>>>>> disabled
>>>>>>>> (CCR.CEN).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you asking to use two different channels for the same STM
>>>>>>> instance,
>>>>>>> one for the clocksource and one for the clockevent ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggested using the CNT register to obtain the count for the clock
>>>>>> source, while using one of the STM channels for the clock event.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is preferable to keep them separated to keep the code
>>>>> modular. Given the number of STM on the platform, it does not hurt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The S32G2 and S32G3 are SoCs featuring a diverse set of cores. Linux is
>>>> expected to run on Cortex-A53 cores, while other software stacks will
>>>> operate on Cortex-M cores. The number of STM instances has been
>>>> sized to
>>>> include at most one instance per core. Allocating six instances (1
>>>> clock
>>>> source, 1 broadcast clock event, and 4 clock events for all A53 cores)
>>>> to Linux on the S32G2 leaves the M7 software stacks without adequate
>>>> STM
>>>> coverage.
>>>
>>> Given this description I'm wondering why one STM has to be used as a
>>> clocksource if the STM_07 is already a TS one. And also, we can get rid
>>> of the broadcast timer as there is no idle state forcing a switch to an
>>> always-on timer.
>>
>> Indeed, STM_07 can be used as a system clock source, but Linux should
>> not assume ownership of it.
>>
>>>
>>> IIUC, on the S32g2 there are 4 x Cortex-A53 and 3 x Cortex-M3, that
>>> means we need 7 timers.
>>>
>>> The system has 7 timers + a special one for timestamp.
>>>
>>> So if I follow the reasoning, the broadcast timer should not be used
>>> otherwise one cortex-M3 will end up without a timer.
>>>
>>
>> On the S32G2, there are eight STM timers and STM_TS. Therefore, there
>> should be enough instances to accommodate 4xA53 and 3xM7 cores.
>>
>>> That leads us to one clocksource for the first per CPU timer initialized
>>> or alternatively one STM instance == 1 clocksource and 1 clockevent
>>> which makes things simpler
>>>
>> I'm not sure I understood the entire description. As I see it, two STM
>> instances should be used to accommodate one clock source, a broadcast
>> clock event, and four clock events—one per core.
>
> What I meant is to do something simpler:
>
> -----------------
>
> cat /proc/interrupts
>
> 16: 7891 0 0 0 GICv3 56 Level
> stm@4011c000
> 17: 0 5326 0 0 GICv3 57 Level
> stm@40120000
> 18: 3 0 16668 0 GICv3 58 Level
> stm@40124000
> 19: 0 0 0 5152 GICv3 59 Level
> stm@40128000
>
> ------------------
>
> cat /sys/devices/system/clockevents/clockevent*/current_device
>
> stm@4011c000
> stm@40120000
> stm@40124000
> stm@40128000
>
> ------------------
>
> cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/available_clocksource
>
> stm@4011c000 stm@40120000 stm@40124000 stm@40128000 arch_sys_counter
>
>
>
> On the S32G2: 4 STM instances used for one clocksource and one clockevent
>
> On the S32G3: 8 STM instances used for one clocksource and one clockevent
>
>
> Specific broadcast timer is not needed as the s32g system.
>
>
> The resulting timer driver code is much simpler.
>
Okay, it makes sense from a complexity standpoint, even though it
doubles the number of STM modules used, while keeping the required
number of STM modules aligned with the number of cores.
>
>> E.g.
>> STM_0
>> - clocksource (based on CNT)
>> - broadcast clock event (channel 0)
>>
>> STM_1
>> - Cortex-A53 0 (channel 0)
>> - Cortex-A53 1 (channel 1)
>> - Cortex-A53 2 (channel 2)
>> - Cortex-A53 3 (channel 3)
>>
>
>
--
Regards,
Ghennadi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-26 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-24 10:00 [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: NXP System Timer Module Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-24 10:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] clocksource/drivers/nxp-timer: Add the System Timer Module for the s32g platform Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-25 7:28 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-25 10:53 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-25 11:40 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-25 12:09 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-25 12:21 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-25 12:51 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-25 13:21 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-25 13:54 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-26 7:44 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-26 8:06 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-26 9:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-26 9:57 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-26 10:31 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-26 13:31 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc [this message]
2025-03-25 7:30 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-03-25 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-25 12:30 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-03-25 18:38 ` Daniel Lezcano
2025-03-25 18:42 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-03-24 14:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: NXP System Timer Module Rob Herring (Arm)
2025-03-24 14:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-03-24 14:44 ` Rob Herring
2025-03-31 10:49 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
2025-03-31 11:59 ` Ghennadi Procopciuc
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=6b48ad6a-2b45-455f-1ba8-3d90deb516f4@oss.nxp.com \
--to=ghennadi.procopciuc@oss.nxp.com \
--cc=Larisa.Grigore@nxp.com \
--cc=alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=ghennadi.procopciuc@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com \
--cc=mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com \
--cc=s32@nxp.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.fossati@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®