| Message ID | 20191010113937.15962-11-ulf.hansson@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cpuidle: psci: Support hierarchical CPU arrangement | expand |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > to its corresponding PM domain. > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > #include <linux/device.h> > #include <linux/kernel.h> > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > #include <linux/psci.h> > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/string.h> > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > return ret; > } > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > + > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > +{ > + struct device *dev; > + > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > + return NULL; > + > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? Further, it's specified as optional in the generic binding, do we make it "required" for this psci idle states binding anywhere that I missed ? -- Regards, Sudeep
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > #include <linux/device.h> > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/string.h> > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > return ret; > > } > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > + > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > +{ > > + struct device *dev; > > + > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > + return NULL; > > + > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus "multiple" power-domains could be specified. In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > Further, it's specified as > optional in the generic binding, do we make it "required" for this psci > idle states binding anywhere that I missed ? Good point! Unless you tell me differently, I will update the DT doc to clarify this is "required". Kind regards Uffe
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > return ret; > > > } > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > + > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > +{ > > > + struct device *dev; > > > + > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > + return NULL; > > > + > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any psci power domains. > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. > > Further, it's specified as > > optional in the generic binding, do we make it "required" for this psci > > idle states binding anywhere that I missed ? > > Good point! Unless you tell me differently, I will update the DT doc > to clarify this is "required". > No but why is my question ? We don't have to. If firmware/DT wants to specify the name, sure. But it must remain optional IMO. -- Regards, Sudeep
On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 03:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > > return ret; > > > > } > > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > > + > > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > + > > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > > + return NULL; > > > > + > > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > > > > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with > psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any > psci power domains. > > > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > > > > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned > above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. Not sure I get your point, sorry. The CPU could very well be attached to more than one power-domain. Of course not multiple "PSCI power-domains". One could be an PSCI power domain and another one could be the QCOM CPR (Core power reduction) power domain. Have a look at these binding, there are already upstream, perhaps that clarifies this? Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-nvmem-cpufreq.txt > > > > Further, it's specified as > > > optional in the generic binding, do we make it "required" for this psci > > > idle states binding anywhere that I missed ? > > > > Good point! Unless you tell me differently, I will update the DT doc > > to clarify this is "required". > > > > No but why is my question ? We don't have to. If firmware/DT wants to > specify the name, sure. But it must remain optional IMO. According the QCOM CPR case, we need a way to distinguish what power domain we should attach the CPU to. If we don't use power-domain-names to do that, what else should we use? Kind regards Uffe
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 03:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > > > return ret; > > > > > } > > > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > > > + > > > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > > + > > > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > + > > > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > > > > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > > > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > > > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > > > > > > > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with > > psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any > > psci power domains. > > > > > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > > > > > > > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned > > above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. > > Not sure I get your point, sorry. > > The CPU could very well be attached to more than one power-domain. Of > course not multiple "PSCI power-domains". One could be an PSCI power > domain and another one could be the QCOM CPR (Core power reduction) > power domain. > And who controls QCOM CPR ? If it's OSPM, this model is broken. I mean OSPM can vote, but the control *has* to be in PSCI firmware to change any CPU power state. If it's firmware controlled, then there's no need to explicitly specify both to OSPM. > Have a look at these binding, there are already upstream, perhaps that > clarifies this? > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-nvmem-cpufreq.txt > OK, I will have a look. -- Regards, Sudeep
+ Niklas On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 08:49, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 03:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > } > > > > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > > > > + > > > > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > > > > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > > > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > > > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > > > > > > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > > > > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > > > > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > > > > > > > > > > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with > > > psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any > > > psci power domains. > > > > > > > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned > > > above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. > > > > Not sure I get your point, sorry. > > > > The CPU could very well be attached to more than one power-domain. Of > > course not multiple "PSCI power-domains". One could be an PSCI power > > domain and another one could be the QCOM CPR (Core power reduction) > > power domain. > > > > And who controls QCOM CPR ? If it's OSPM, this model is broken. > I mean OSPM can vote, but the control *has* to be in PSCI firmware to > change any CPU power state. > > If it's firmware controlled, then there's no need to explicitly specify > both to OSPM. This is about OPP and CPUFreq, so it has nothing to do with PSCI. > > > Have a look at these binding, there are already upstream, perhaps that > > clarifies this? > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-nvmem-cpufreq.txt > > > > OK, I will have a look. Great. I have looped in Niklas Casell, he should be able to answer any more detailed questions in regards to QCOM CPR, if that is needed. In any case, we are discussing whether we should require a power-domain-names set to "psci" for the CPU node - and I don't see how that could hurt. Right? Kind regards Uffe
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:45:22AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > + Niklas > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 08:49, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 03:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > > > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > > > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > > > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > > > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > > > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > > > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > > > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > > > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > > > > > > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > > > > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > > > > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > > > > > > > > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > > > > > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > > > > > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with > > > > psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any > > > > psci power domains. > > > > > > > > > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned > > > > above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. > > > > > > Not sure I get your point, sorry. > > > > > > The CPU could very well be attached to more than one power-domain. Of > > > course not multiple "PSCI power-domains". One could be an PSCI power > > > domain and another one could be the QCOM CPR (Core power reduction) > > > power domain. > > > > > > > And who controls QCOM CPR ? If it's OSPM, this model is broken. > > I mean OSPM can vote, but the control *has* to be in PSCI firmware to > > change any CPU power state. > > > > If it's firmware controlled, then there's no need to explicitly specify > > both to OSPM. > > This is about OPP and CPUFreq, so it has nothing to do with PSCI. > > > > > > Have a look at these binding, there are already upstream, perhaps that > > > clarifies this? > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-nvmem-cpufreq.txt > > > > > > > OK, I will have a look. > > Great. > > I have looped in Niklas Casell, he should be able to answer any more > detailed questions in regards to QCOM CPR, if that is needed. > So had a look at the DT bindings and standalone it looks fine. But when it's mixed like the way you describe: yikes! Why does a power(oh wait it's actually performance domain!) is combined with a device whose actual power is controlled by only by PSCI/firmware is associated along with another power(again actally performance) domain. This whole representation of performance domain as power domain in the bindings is a *mess*. If Linux kernel chose to implement it as part of genpd, that's fine. But we should have had a separate binding for that. > In any case, we are discussing whether we should require a > power-domain-names set to "psci" for the CPU node - and I don't see > how that could hurt. Right? > Honestly I don't like this, but we don't have any choice I think. So yes, but you need to update the binding. Hope new platform move all these performance domain control part into firmware and have single control from kernel unlike the present generation which OPP through clock or cpufreq and the voltage/performance comtrol via genpd. -- Regards, Sudeep
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:34:24PM +0800, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:45:22AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > + Niklas > > > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 08:49, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 03:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > > > > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > > > > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > > > > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > > > > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > > > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > > > > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > > > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > > > > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > > > > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > > > > > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > > > > > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > > > > > > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > > > > > > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with > > > > > psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any > > > > > psci power domains. > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned > > > > > above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. > > > > > > > > Not sure I get your point, sorry. > > > > > > > > The CPU could very well be attached to more than one power-domain. Of > > > > course not multiple "PSCI power-domains". One could be an PSCI power > > > > domain and another one could be the QCOM CPR (Core power reduction) > > > > power domain. > > > > > > > > > > And who controls QCOM CPR ? If it's OSPM, this model is broken. > > > I mean OSPM can vote, but the control *has* to be in PSCI firmware to > > > change any CPU power state. > > > > > > If it's firmware controlled, then there's no need to explicitly specify > > > both to OSPM. > > > > This is about OPP and CPUFreq, so it has nothing to do with PSCI. > > > > > > > > > Have a look at these binding, there are already upstream, perhaps that > > > > clarifies this? > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-nvmem-cpufreq.txt > > > > > > > > > > OK, I will have a look. > > > > Great. > > > > I have looped in Niklas Casell, he should be able to answer any more > > detailed questions in regards to QCOM CPR, if that is needed. > > > > So had a look at the DT bindings and standalone it looks fine. > But when it's mixed like the way you describe: yikes! > > Why does a power(oh wait it's actually performance domain!) is combined > with a device whose actual power is controlled by only by PSCI/firmware > is associated along with another power(again actally performance) > domain. > > This whole representation of performance domain as power domain in the > bindings is a *mess*. If Linux kernel chose to implement it as part > of genpd, that's fine. But we should have had a separate binding for > that. > > > In any case, we are discussing whether we should require a > > power-domain-names set to "psci" for the CPU node - and I don't see > > how that could hurt. Right? > > > > Honestly I don't like this, but we don't have any choice I think. > So yes, but you need to update the binding. Hope new platform move > all these performance domain control part into firmware and have single > control from kernel unlike the present generation which OPP through > clock or cpufreq and the voltage/performance comtrol via genpd. FWIW, in newer generation Qualcomm SoCs like SDM845, the voltage/performance control is done in firmware, by the OSM (drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c). Kind regards, Niklas
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:44:44AM +0100, Niklas Cassel wrote: > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 01:34:24PM +0800, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:45:22AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > + Niklas > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Oct 2019 at 08:49, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 08:35:55AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 at 03:30, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a > > > > > > > > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device > > > > > > > > > to its corresponding PM domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to > > > > > > > > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, > > > > > > > > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ > > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c > > > > > > > > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/cpu.h> > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/device.h> > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/kernel.h> > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h> > > > > > > > > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/psci.h> > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > > > > > > > > #include <linux/string.h> > > > > > > > > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) > > > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) > > > > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > > > > + struct device *dev; > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ > > > > > > > > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) > > > > > > > > > + return NULL; > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0 > > > > > > > > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain > > > > > > > > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on > > > > > > > some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus > > > > > > > "multiple" power-domains could be specified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with > > > > > > psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any > > > > > > psci power domains. > > > > > > > > > > > > > In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned > > > > > > above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever. > > > > > > > > > > Not sure I get your point, sorry. > > > > > > > > > > The CPU could very well be attached to more than one power-domain. Of > > > > > course not multiple "PSCI power-domains". One could be an PSCI power > > > > > domain and another one could be the QCOM CPR (Core power reduction) > > > > > power domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > And who controls QCOM CPR ? If it's OSPM, this model is broken. > > > > I mean OSPM can vote, but the control *has* to be in PSCI firmware to > > > > change any CPU power state. > > > > > > > > If it's firmware controlled, then there's no need to explicitly specify > > > > both to OSPM. > > > > > > This is about OPP and CPUFreq, so it has nothing to do with PSCI. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have a look at these binding, there are already upstream, perhaps that > > > > > clarifies this? > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/opp/qcom-nvmem-cpufreq.txt > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I will have a look. > > > > > > Great. > > > > > > I have looped in Niklas Casell, he should be able to answer any more > > > detailed questions in regards to QCOM CPR, if that is needed. > > > > > > > So had a look at the DT bindings and standalone it looks fine. > > But when it's mixed like the way you describe: yikes! > > > > Why does a power(oh wait it's actually performance domain!) is combined > > with a device whose actual power is controlled by only by PSCI/firmware > > is associated along with another power(again actally performance) > > domain. > > > > This whole representation of performance domain as power domain in the > > bindings is a *mess*. If Linux kernel chose to implement it as part > > of genpd, that's fine. But we should have had a separate binding for > > that. > > > > > In any case, we are discussing whether we should require a > > > power-domain-names set to "psci" for the CPU node - and I don't see > > > how that could hurt. Right? > > > > > > > Honestly I don't like this, but we don't have any choice I think. > > So yes, but you need to update the binding. Hope new platform move > > all these performance domain control part into firmware and have single > > control from kernel unlike the present generation which OPP through > > clock or cpufreq and the voltage/performance comtrol via genpd. > > FWIW, in newer generation Qualcomm SoCs like SDM845, > the voltage/performance control is done in firmware, > by the OSM (drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c). > Indeed, I was implicitly referring to this platform but just wanted to be assured that we are not going back. -- Regards, Sudeep
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644 --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@ #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt +#include <linux/cpu.h> #include <linux/device.h> #include <linux/kernel.h> #include <linux/pm_domain.h> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h> #include <linux/psci.h> #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/string.h> @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void) return ret; } subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains); + +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) +{ + struct device *dev; + + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */ + if (!psci_has_osi_support()) + return NULL; + + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci"); + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev)) + return dev; + + pm_runtime_irq_safe(dev); + if (cpu_online(cpu)) + pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); + + return dev; +} diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h index e593de1784c3..d2e55cad9ac6 100644 --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h @@ -8,4 +8,10 @@ struct device_node; void psci_set_domain_state(u32 state); int __init psci_dt_parse_state_node(struct device_node *np, u32 *state); +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu); +#else +static inline struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu) { return NULL; } +#endif + #endif /* __CPUIDLE_PSCI_H */
Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device to its corresponding PM domain. Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally, let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM. Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)