Re: [PATCH v3 02/15] dt/bindings: Update binding for PM domain idle states

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Mon, Aug 15 2016 at 10:14 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:


On 15/08/16 17:08, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12 2016 at 04:08 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:


On 11/08/16 22:10, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10 2016 at 12:09 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:


[...]

cluster0
  CLUSTER_RET(Retention)
  CLUSTER_PG(Power Gate)
  core0
      CORE_RET
      CORE_PG
  core1
      CORE_RET
      CORE_PG

cluster1
  CLUSTER_RET
  CLUSTER_PG
  core0
      CORE_RET
      CORE_PG
  core1
      CORE_RET
      CORE_PG

Platform Co-ordinate supports the following states and we should be
able to determine that from the binding:

CORE_RET
CORE_PG
CORE_RET + CLUSTER_RET

The problem that we have to sove here is knowing that CORE_RET +
CLUSTER_PG (hypothetically) an invalid combination. Kevin and
I debated it in the earlier RFC and we dont have a good way to solve
this generically for all devices.


Yes, I agree it's complex. But that needs to be solved IMO.

I can think of 2 possible solutions:

1. Index the states(which people have not liked, but as along as we
 don't use it in the code as it for any other purpose, it should be
 fine) and then have each state mentioning what parent state can be
 entered at this child state(i.e. starting index and all states below
 it)

This is how QCOM solved it downstream.


Yes even ACPI has indices to solve this.

2. Something similar to (1) but without index instead phandles.


The problem is when you have non-CPU devices in the device tree and
since they do not have a way to represent states like CPU, we did not
have a clear path to that. Hence we punted that to later. Whatever we
do, we should solve it for a generic PM domain, not just CPU domains.


Yes bindings defined here should be applicable for devices to, but only
CPU's will have this hierarchy while the devices need not bother about
hierarchy. However the parent power domain can ever the state which is
least common denominator of all it's children power domain. That's my
understanding. No ?

That is correct. But say if all the CPUs choose CORE_RET + CLUSTER_PG,
which is invalid and the firmware has to ignore it and does CORE_RET +
CLUSTER_RET instead, then Linux may have an inconsistent view of the
state selection.

Thanks,
Lina

--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux