On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:22:33PM +0200, Georgi Djakov wrote: > Modern SoCs have multiple processors and various dedicated cores (video, gpu, > graphics, modem). These cores are talking to each other and can generate a lot > of data flowing through the on-chip interconnects. These interconnect buses > could form different topologies such as crossbar, point to point buses, > hierarchical buses or use the network-on-chip concept. > > These buses have been sized usually to handle use cases with high data > throughput but it is not necessary all the time and consume a lot of power. > Furthermore, the priority between masters can vary depending on the running > use case like video playback or cpu intensive tasks. > > Having an API to control the requirement of the system in term of bandwidth > and QoS, so we can adapt the interconnect configuration to match those by > scaling the frequencies, setting link priority and tuning QoS parameters. > This configuration can be a static, one-time operation done at boot for some > platforms or a dynamic set of operations that happen at run-time. > > This patchset introduce a new API to get the requirement and configure the > interconnect buses across the entire chipset to fit with the current demand. > The API is NOT for changing the performance of the endpoint devices, but only > the interconnect path in between them. > > The API is using a consumer/provider-based model, where the providers are > the interconnect controllers and the consumers could be various drivers. > The consumers request interconnect resources (path) to an endpoint and set > the desired constraints on this data flow path. The provider(s) receive > requests from consumers and aggregate these requests for all master-slave > pairs on that path. Then the providers configure each participating in the > topology node according to the requested data flow path, physical links and > constraints. The topology could be complicated and multi-tiered and is SoC > specific. > > Below is a simplified diagram of a real-world SoC topology. The interconnect > providers are the memory front-end and the NoCs. > > +----------------+ +----------------+ > | HW Accelerator |--->| M NoC |<---------------+ > +----------------+ +----------------+ | > | | +------------+ > +-------------+ V +------+ | | > | +--------+ | PCIe | | | > | | Slaves | +------+ | | > | +--------+ | | C NoC | > V V | | > +------------------+ +------------------------+ | | +-----+ > | |-->| |-->| |-->| CPU | > | |-->| |<--| | +-----+ > | Memory | | S NoC | +------------+ > | |<--| |---------+ | > | |<--| |<------+ | | +--------+ > +------------------+ +------------------------+ | | +-->| Slaves | > ^ ^ ^ ^ | | +--------+ > | | | | | V > +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ +---------+ +----------------+ +--------+ > | CPU | | | GPU | | DSP | | Masters |-->| P NoC |-->| Slaves | > +-----+ | +-----+ +-----+ +---------+ +----------------+ +--------+ > | > +-------+ > | Modem | > +-------+ > > This RFC does not implement all features but only main skeleton to check the > validity of the proposal. Currently it only works with device-tree and platform > devices. > > TODO: > * Constraints are currently stored in internal data structure. Should PM QoS > be used instead? > * Rework the framework to not depend on DT as frameworks cannot be tied > directly to firmware interfaces. Add support for ACPI? I would start without DT even. You can always have the data you need in the kernel. This will be more flexible as you're not defining an ABI as this evolves. I think it will take some time to have consensus on how to represent the bus master view of buses/interconnects (It's been attempted before). Rob -- 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
