| Message ID | 1463634020-17252-4-git-send-email-andy.gross@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Andy, On 05/19/2016 08:00 AM, Andy Gross wrote: > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > freeze. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > idle-states { Is this change depends on some another patchset, I cannot find idle-states dt node on mainline nor linux-next ? > CPU_SPC: spc { > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > entry-latency-us = <130>; > exit-latency-us = <150>; >
On 19 May 2016 at 14:52, Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On 05/19/2016 08:00 AM, Andy Gross wrote: >> This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle >> state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports >> freeze. >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi >> index 208af00..032e411 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi >> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ >> >> idle-states { > > Is this change depends on some another patchset, I cannot find > idle-states dt node on mainline nor linux-next ? The cover letter gives a link to the patchset that contains the basis for the changes. You can also check out my posted branch which merges in a part of those changes. The link to the specific patch is: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-arm-msm/msg19675.html or you can look at this: https://git.linaro.org/people/andy.gross/linux-pm.git/shortlog/refs/heads/for-pramod
[+ Lorenzo] On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > freeze. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > idle-states { > CPU_SPC: spc { > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > entry-latency-us = <130>; > exit-latency-us = <150>; This looks suspicious. This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the generic ARM cpuidle driver. Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to driver suspend-to-idle? Thank, Mark.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > [+ Lorenzo] > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > freeze. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > --- > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > idle-states { > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > This looks suspicious. > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > driver suspend-to-idle? We need a way to identify specific idle states that support suspend-to-idle. In addition, when we have identified the states, we may have to configure the enter_freeze() function. I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't want to add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I needed a separate place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. With the compatible, this makes my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code identical, as we have our own cpuidle driver for the 32 bit procs. An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to the arm cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at some later point. Regards, Andy
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > freeze. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > idle-states { > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support suspend-to-idle. In > addition, when we have identified the states, we may have to configure the > enter_freeze() function. Could you elaborate on what you mean by a state supporting suspend-to-idle? It was my understanding that any idle state should function for suspend-to-idle (and the choice of state is potentially subjective). > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't want to > add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I needed a separate > place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. Which suspend code is Qualcomm-specific? There shouldn't be anything on the PSCI side, so I can only imagine that device management is left. What am I missing? > With the compatible, this makes > my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code identical, as we have our own cpuidle > driver for the 32 bit procs. > > An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to the arm > cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at some later point. I would prefer that suspend-to-idle using PSCI occurred via the generic PSCI and cpuidle code. I am happy to extend that code if there is something lacking, and I would prefer to not have platform-specific hooks. Thanks, Mark.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > freeze. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > idle-states { > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support > suspend-to-idle. In addition, when we have identified the states, we > may have to configure the enter_freeze() function. > > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't > want to add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I > needed a separate place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. With > the compatible, this makes my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code > identical, as we have our own cpuidle driver for the 32 bit procs. > > An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to > the arm cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at > some later point. (1) enter_freeze() hooks are not strictly necessary to enable suspend-to-idle (they are if we want the tick to be frozen on suspend-to-idle, which is different) (2) If I understand your code correctly you have to set the suspend ops hook to make sure suspend-to-idle is enabled. This is a core code issue rather than anything else, given that suspend-to-idle (hey it is based on CPUidle !) does NOT rely on suspend ops to function. So the gist is: as far as I am concerned you do not need any of this code to enable (yes you need PSCI idle states but no qcom,idle-state-spc compatible string whatsoever) suspend-to-idle on ARM64 on top of PSCI, let me know what I am missing. Thanks, Lorenzo
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:25:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > > > idle-states { > > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support suspend-to-idle. In > > addition, when we have identified the states, we may have to configure the > > enter_freeze() function. > > Could you elaborate on what you mean by a state supporting > suspend-to-idle? It was my understanding that any idle state should > function for suspend-to-idle (and the choice of state is potentially > subjective). when you freeze the system, cpuidle will try to find the deepest state which supports freeze (by checking if a enter_freeze() exists). If it does exist, then the tick is frozen and the enter_freeze is called as each cpu goes idle. If no enter_freeze exists, the system will suspend, but will continue to have interrupts occur due to the tick and other bookkeeping stuff. > > > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't want to > > add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I needed a separate > > place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. > > Which suspend code is Qualcomm-specific? There shouldn't be anything on > the PSCI side, so I can only imagine that device management is left. > What am I missing? Qualcomm won't be supporting the psci suspend feature and will be doing their own thing. As such, they need their own suspend ops. In addition, we have platforms that don't use psci (32 bit). > > With the compatible, this makes > > my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code identical, as we have our own cpuidle > > driver for the 32 bit procs. > > > > An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to the arm > > cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at some later point. > > I would prefer that suspend-to-idle using PSCI occurred via the generic > PSCI and cpuidle code. I am happy to extend that code if there is > something lacking, and I would prefer to not have platform-specific > hooks. Right, I briefly looked at that in the beginning and decided against it. But if we can at least add some way to identify freezeable idle states and configure the freeze function, that'd cover all the requirements. Regards, Andy
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:31:53PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > > > idle-states { > > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support > > suspend-to-idle. In addition, when we have identified the states, we > > may have to configure the enter_freeze() function. > > > > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't > > want to add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I > > needed a separate place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. With > > the compatible, this makes my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code > > identical, as we have our own cpuidle driver for the 32 bit procs. > > > > An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to > > the arm cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at > > some later point. > > (1) enter_freeze() hooks are not strictly necessary to enable > suspend-to-idle (they are if we want the tick to be frozen > on suspend-to-idle, which is different) I'd think that you'd want the tick frozen. Even if you are going to just call the deepest freezable idle state in your freeze_function, you don't want to keep getting woken up as this costs some power usage > (2) If I understand your code correctly you have to set the suspend > ops hook to make sure suspend-to-idle is enabled. This is a core > code issue rather than anything else, given that suspend-to-idle > (hey it is based on CPUidle !) does NOT rely on suspend ops to > function. It only requires having suspend_ops and a valid function. Otherwise you can never suspend and never exercise the freeze portion of the cpuidle code. > > So the gist is: as far as I am concerned you do not need any of this > code to enable (yes you need PSCI idle states but no > qcom,idle-state-spc compatible string whatsoever) suspend-to-idle > on ARM64 on top of PSCI, let me know what I am missing. If we had the facilities in the arm cpuidle driver then for 64 bit processors, I wouldn't have to do anything except provision my suspend_ops + valid function. For 32 bit, we actually already use this compat tag and I just have to add code in the spm driver (qcom cpuidle) to init the suspend_ops. Regards, Andy
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:52:48AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: [...] > > (1) enter_freeze() hooks are not strictly necessary to enable > > suspend-to-idle (they are if we want the tick to be frozen > > on suspend-to-idle, which is different) > > I'd think that you'd want the tick frozen. Even if you are going to > just call the deepest freezable idle state in your freeze_function, > you don't want to keep getting woken up as this costs some power usage As I said, that's a separate issue from these bindings. > > (2) If I understand your code correctly you have to set the suspend > > ops hook to make sure suspend-to-idle is enabled. This is a core > > code issue rather than anything else, given that suspend-to-idle > > (hey it is based on CPUidle !) does NOT rely on suspend ops to > > function. > > It only requires having suspend_ops and a valid function. Otherwise > you can never suspend and never exercise the freeze portion of the > cpuidle code. As I said, *currently* you have to call suspend_set_ops() to set up the pm_states label for PM_SUSPEND_FREEZE, suspend_ops are irrelevant to make suspend-to-idle work and as I said that's related to core code rather than platform specific suspend ops. We should solve issues, not work around them. > > So the gist is: as far as I am concerned you do not need any of this > > code to enable (yes you need PSCI idle states but no > > qcom,idle-state-spc compatible string whatsoever) suspend-to-idle > > on ARM64 on top of PSCI, let me know what I am missing. > > If we had the facilities in the arm cpuidle driver then for 64 bit > processors, I wouldn't have to do anything except provision my > suspend_ops + valid function. For 32 bit, we actually already use > this compat tag and I just have to add code in the spm driver (qcom > cpuidle) to init the suspend_ops. For 64-bit you do not have to have add any facility. 1) we should change core code to make PM_SUSPEND_FREEZE independent of suspend_set_ops() 2) we should define which idle states are freezable (99% of them are minus coupled idle states), through generic bindings Lorenzo
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:52:48AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > [...] > > > > (1) enter_freeze() hooks are not strictly necessary to enable > > > suspend-to-idle (they are if we want the tick to be frozen > > > on suspend-to-idle, which is different) > > > > I'd think that you'd want the tick frozen. Even if you are going to > > just call the deepest freezable idle state in your freeze_function, > > you don't want to keep getting woken up as this costs some power usage > > As I said, that's a separate issue from these bindings. I kind of see that coupled with the determination that a idle state supports freeze. Or are you wanting to have something else that decides whether or not to configure the enter_freeze? > > > (2) If I understand your code correctly you have to set the suspend > > > ops hook to make sure suspend-to-idle is enabled. This is a core > > > code issue rather than anything else, given that suspend-to-idle > > > (hey it is based on CPUidle !) does NOT rely on suspend ops to > > > function. > > > > It only requires having suspend_ops and a valid function. Otherwise > > you can never suspend and never exercise the freeze portion of the > > cpuidle code. > > As I said, *currently* you have to call suspend_set_ops() to set > up the pm_states label for PM_SUSPEND_FREEZE, suspend_ops are > irrelevant to make suspend-to-idle work and as I said that's > related to core code rather than platform specific suspend ops. > > We should solve issues, not work around them. I wholeheartedly agree. I was just being more precise in my answer. > > > > So the gist is: as far as I am concerned you do not need any of this > > > code to enable (yes you need PSCI idle states but no > > > qcom,idle-state-spc compatible string whatsoever) suspend-to-idle > > > on ARM64 on top of PSCI, let me know what I am missing. > > > > If we had the facilities in the arm cpuidle driver then for 64 bit > > processors, I wouldn't have to do anything except provision my > > suspend_ops + valid function. For 32 bit, we actually already use > > this compat tag and I just have to add code in the spm driver (qcom > > cpuidle) to init the suspend_ops. > > For 64-bit you do not have to have add any facility. > > 1) we should change core code to make PM_SUSPEND_FREEZE independent > of suspend_set_ops() So then, if cpuidle is active and you have idle states supporting freeze, then you can always implicitly freeze the system. This would infer then that the system will always indicate it can do freeze. I am good with that. For now, we can get away with just implementing the changes you are suggesting. > 2) we should define which idle states are freezable (99% of them are > minus coupled idle states), through generic bindings This would be in the form of a DT property? And given this property then we'd just assign a enter_freeze() function that calls the enter() for that state. Or would we have something else that we need to key off of to decide to configure the enter_freeze? Regards, Andy
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:27:16PM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 06:06:56PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:52:48AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > (1) enter_freeze() hooks are not strictly necessary to enable > > > > suspend-to-idle (they are if we want the tick to be frozen > > > > on suspend-to-idle, which is different) > > > > > > I'd think that you'd want the tick frozen. Even if you are going to > > > just call the deepest freezable idle state in your freeze_function, > > > you don't want to keep getting woken up as this costs some power usage > > > > As I said, that's a separate issue from these bindings. > > I kind of see that coupled with the determination that a idle state > supports freeze. Or are you wanting to have something else that > decides whether or not to configure the enter_freeze? All PSCI based idle state support freeze, as long as most of the other idle routines for ARM 32-bit, I do not even think we should bother with defining DT bindings for it. [...] > > For 64-bit you do not have to have add any facility. > > > > 1) we should change core code to make PM_SUSPEND_FREEZE independent > > of suspend_set_ops() > > So then, if cpuidle is active and you have idle states supporting > freeze, then you can always implicitly freeze the system. This would > infer then that the system will always indicate it can do freeze. I > am good with that. > > For now, we can get away with just implementing the changes you are > suggesting. Cracking. > > 2) we should define which idle states are freezable (99% of them are > > minus coupled idle states), through generic bindings > > This would be in the form of a DT property? And given this property > then we'd just assign a enter_freeze() function that calls the enter() > for that state. Or would we have something else that we need to key > off of to decide to configure the enter_freeze? See above, I will give it more thought. I take an action to change core code as per discussion above. Thanks for raising the point. Lorenzo
On Fri, Jun 10 2016 at 10:47 -0600, Andy Gross wrote: >On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:25:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > > [+ Lorenzo] >> > > >> > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: <...> >> >> > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't want to >> > add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I needed a separate >> > place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. >> >> Which suspend code is Qualcomm-specific? There shouldn't be anything on >> the PSCI side, so I can only imagine that device management is left. >> What am I missing? > >Qualcomm won't be supporting the psci suspend feature and will be doing their >own thing. As such, they need their own suspend ops. In addition, we have >platforms that don't use psci (32 bit). > Andy, which PSCI suspend feature are you referring to, here? On 8916, we do support CPU_SUSPEND in PSCI. You don't want to call SYSTEM_SUSPEND, as it requires the other CPUs to be CPU_OFF (hotplugged off) before the last core calls this PSCI function. Lina
On 10 June 2016 at 16:16, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10 2016 at 10:47 -0600, Andy Gross wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:25:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: >>> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> > > [+ Lorenzo] >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > <...> >>> >>> >>> > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't >>> > want to >>> > add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I needed a >>> > separate >>> > place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. >>> >>> Which suspend code is Qualcomm-specific? There shouldn't be anything on >>> the PSCI side, so I can only imagine that device management is left. >>> What am I missing? >> >> > >> Qualcomm won't be supporting the psci suspend feature and will be doing >> their >> own thing. As such, they need their own suspend ops. In addition, we >> have >> platforms that don't use psci (32 bit). >> > Andy, which PSCI suspend feature are you referring to, here? On 8916, we > do support CPU_SUSPEND in PSCI. > > You don't want to call SYSTEM_SUSPEND, as it requires the other CPUs to > be CPU_OFF (hotplugged off) before the last core calls this PSCI > function. I was referring to the SYSTEM_SUSPEND psci feature. It was my understanding that wouldn't be supported on the Qualcomm platforms. Regards, Andy
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:47:21AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:25:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > > > > > idle-states { > > > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > > > > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support suspend-to-idle. In > > > addition, when we have identified the states, we may have to configure the > > > enter_freeze() function. > > > > Could you elaborate on what you mean by a state supporting > > suspend-to-idle? It was my understanding that any idle state should > > function for suspend-to-idle (and the choice of state is potentially > > subjective). > > when you freeze the system, cpuidle will try to find the deepest state which > supports freeze (by checking if a enter_freeze() exists). If it does exist, > then the tick is frozen and the enter_freeze is called as each cpu goes idle. Per Lorenzo's replies in another thread, it sounds like this is a generic issue, and not specific to Qualcomm. My understanding is that the only issue is coupled idle states, and further, that issue is really an implementation detail within Linux w.r.t. IRQ management. So it sounds like we need to rework things to be robust in the case of coupled idle states, and we can wire up enter_freeze for all states generically. If there is some peroblem with making things robust, I assume we can identify coupled idle states today in some generic manner. I don't currently see the need for any DT binding. Lorenzo, does the above make sense to you? > > > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't want to > > > add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I needed a separate > > > place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. > > > > Which suspend code is Qualcomm-specific? There shouldn't be anything on > > the PSCI side, so I can only imagine that device management is left. > > What am I missing? > > Qualcomm won't be supporting the psci suspend feature and will be doing their > own thing. As such, they need their own suspend ops. In addition, we have > platforms that don't use psci (32 bit). That's orthogonal to suspend-to-idle, which can be handled in a generic fashion. It's also orthogonal to 32-bit !PSCI platforms, as my complaint was regarding the use of this with PSCI. > > > With the compatible, this makes > > > my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code identical, as we have our own cpuidle > > > driver for the 32 bit procs. > > > > > > An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to the arm > > > cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at some later point. > > > > I would prefer that suspend-to-idle using PSCI occurred via the generic > > PSCI and cpuidle code. I am happy to extend that code if there is > > something lacking, and I would prefer to not have platform-specific > > hooks. > > Right, I briefly looked at that in the beginning and decided against it. But if > we can at least add some way to identify freezeable idle states and configure > the freeze function, that'd cover all the requirements. Ok, per the above I believe that is covered. Thanks, Mark.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:00:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:47:21AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:25:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > idle-states { > > > > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > > > > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > > > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > > > > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > > > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > > > > > > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support suspend-to-idle. In > > > > addition, when we have identified the states, we may have to configure the > > > > enter_freeze() function. > > > > > > Could you elaborate on what you mean by a state supporting > > > suspend-to-idle? It was my understanding that any idle state should > > > function for suspend-to-idle (and the choice of state is potentially > > > subjective). > > > > when you freeze the system, cpuidle will try to find the deepest state which > > supports freeze (by checking if a enter_freeze() exists). If it does exist, > > then the tick is frozen and the enter_freeze is called as each cpu goes idle. > > Per Lorenzo's replies in another thread, it sounds like this is a > generic issue, and not specific to Qualcomm. My understanding is that > the only issue is coupled idle states, and further, that issue is really > an implementation detail within Linux w.r.t. IRQ management. > > So it sounds like we need to rework things to be robust in the case of > coupled idle states, and we can wire up enter_freeze for all states > generically. > > If there is some peroblem with making things robust, I assume we can > identify coupled idle states today in some generic manner. I don't > currently see the need for any DT binding. > > Lorenzo, does the above make sense to you? It does but I have a concern, let me summarize the problem here. An idle state is freezeable if it can be entered with a function that does not enable IRQs and that's a kernel implementation detail; that function is used to initialize its enter_freeze() hook. That's the case for all ARM platforms I am aware of, apart from the ones relying on coupled C-states that (by construction, in core CPUidle code) rely on IRQ enabling in their enter function body to work (NB: I do not handle coupled idle states in generic ARM CPUidle code, and I will never do so that's a non-existing problem). The point is: while initializing the idle states in: drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c (init_state_node()) we do not have all necessary information to know if we can safely initialize the enter_freeze() hook (because that's a property that depends on the CPUidle back-end). We could add a DT property to report an idle state as "freezeable", but that's ugly and ill-defined, it is a kernel implementation detail, not sure a DT property makes sense here. So, either: (1) We consider all idle states to be "freezeable" and so I initialize their enter_freeze() pointer == enter() (and assume the idle back-end does NOT enable IRQs, I could add some documentation for that) (2) I have to add code that probes the idle back-end (ie the arm_cpuidle_suspend() implementation) to detect which states require IRQs to be enabled. (2) is ugly/convoluted (and solving a problem that does not exist at present). I am quite tempted to go for (1) and if we ever have some issues with that we blacklist the respective platforms enable-methods in the DT idle parsing code. Thoughts appreciated. Lorenzo
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 02:48:33PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:00:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:47:21AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:25:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > [+ Lorenzo] > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote: > > > > > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle > > > > > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports > > > > > > > freeze. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi > > > > > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idle-states { > > > > > > > CPU_SPC: spc { > > > > > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; > > > > > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; > > > > > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; > > > > > > > entry-latency-us = <130>; > > > > > > > exit-latency-us = <150>; > > > > > > > > > > > > This looks suspicious. > > > > > > > > > > > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the > > > > > > generic ARM cpuidle driver. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here? > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to > > > > > > driver suspend-to-idle? > > > > > > > > > > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support suspend-to-idle. In > > > > > addition, when we have identified the states, we may have to configure the > > > > > enter_freeze() function. > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate on what you mean by a state supporting > > > > suspend-to-idle? It was my understanding that any idle state should > > > > function for suspend-to-idle (and the choice of state is potentially > > > > subjective). > > > > > > when you freeze the system, cpuidle will try to find the deepest state which > > > supports freeze (by checking if a enter_freeze() exists). If it does exist, > > > then the tick is frozen and the enter_freeze is called as each cpu goes idle. > > > > Per Lorenzo's replies in another thread, it sounds like this is a > > generic issue, and not specific to Qualcomm. My understanding is that > > the only issue is coupled idle states, and further, that issue is really > > an implementation detail within Linux w.r.t. IRQ management. > > > > So it sounds like we need to rework things to be robust in the case of > > coupled idle states, and we can wire up enter_freeze for all states > > generically. > > > > If there is some peroblem with making things robust, I assume we can > > identify coupled idle states today in some generic manner. I don't > > currently see the need for any DT binding. > > > > Lorenzo, does the above make sense to you? > > It does but I have a concern, let me summarize the problem here. > > An idle state is freezeable if it can be entered with a function > that does not enable IRQs and that's a kernel implementation > detail; that function is used to initialize its enter_freeze() > hook. > > That's the case for all ARM platforms I am aware of, apart > from the ones relying on coupled C-states that (by construction, > in core CPUidle code) rely on IRQ enabling in their enter > function body to work (NB: I do not handle coupled idle states > in generic ARM CPUidle code, and I will never do so that's a > non-existing problem). > > The point is: while initializing the idle states in: > > drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c (init_state_node()) > > we do not have all necessary information to know if we can > safely initialize the enter_freeze() hook (because > that's a property that depends on the CPUidle back-end). And this is why I was modifying the enter_freeze after the cpuidle driver was loaded. And also why i was keying off the compat tag. > > We could add a DT property to report an idle state as > "freezeable", but that's ugly and ill-defined, it is a kernel > implementation detail, not sure a DT property makes sense > here. > > So, either: > > (1) We consider all idle states to be "freezeable" and so > I initialize their enter_freeze() pointer == enter() > (and assume the idle back-end does NOT enable IRQs, I > could add some documentation for that) The only issue at the moment with this is that the function prototypes are different. That is why I call the .enter function from withing my enter_freeze. Otherwise I think this would work pretty well. > > (2) I have to add code that probes the idle back-end (ie > the arm_cpuidle_suspend() implementation) to detect > which states require IRQs to be enabled. > > (2) is ugly/convoluted (and solving a problem that does not exist > at present). I am quite tempted to go for (1) and if we ever > have some issues with that we blacklist the respective platforms > enable-methods in the DT idle parsing code. > > Thoughts appreciated. > > Lorenzo Regards, Andy
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi index 208af00..032e411 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ idle-states { CPU_SPC: spc { - compatible = "arm,idle-state"; + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state"; arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>; entry-latency-us = <130>; exit-latency-us = <150>;
This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports freeze. Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)