On 07/03/18 13:52, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 02/03/18 10:10, Vivek Gautam wrote:
From: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks
gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without
the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those places
separately.
Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[vivek: Cleanup pm runtime calls]
Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 96
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
index c8b16f53f597..3d6a1875431f 100644
--- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
+++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
@@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
struct clk_bulk_data *clks;
int num_clks;
+ bool rpm_supported;
+
Can we not automatically infer this from whether clocks and/or power domains
are specified or not, then just use pm_runtime_enabled() as the fast-path
check as Tomasz originally proposed?
I wouldn't tie this to presence of clocks, since as a next step we
would want to actually control the clocks separately. (As far as I
understand, on QCom SoCs we might want to have runtime PM active for
the translation to work, but clocks gated whenever access to SMMU
registers is not needed.) Moreover, you might still have some super
high scale thousand-core systems that require clocks to be
prepare-enabled, but runtime PM would be undesirable for the reasons
we discussed before.
I worry that relying on statically-defined matchdata is just going to blow
up the driver and DT binding into a maintenance nightmare; I really don't
want to start needing separate definitions for e.g. "arm,juno-etr-mmu-401"
and "arm,juno-hdlcd-mmu-401" just because one otherwise-identical instance
within the SoC is in a separate controllable power domain while the others
aren't.
I don't see a reason why both couldn't just have RPM supported
regardless of whether there is a real power domain. It would
effectively be just a no-op for those that don't have one.
Because you're then effectively defining "compatible" values for the
sake of attaching software policy to them, rather than actually
describing different hardware implementations.
The fact that RPM can't do anything meaningful unless relevant
clock/power aspects *are* described, however, means that we shouldn't
need additional information redundant with that. Much like the fact that
we don't *already* have an "arm,juno-hdlcd-mmu-401" compatible to
account for those being integrated such that IDR0.CTTW has the wrong
value, since the presence or not of the "dma-coherent" property already
describes the truth in that regard.
IMHO the
only reason to avoid having the RPM enabled is the scalability issue
we discussed before.
Yes, but that's kind of my point; in reality high throughput/minimal
latency and aggressive power management are more or less mutually
exclusive. Mobile SoCs with fine-grained clock trees and power domains
won't have multiple 40GBe/NVMf/whatever links running flat out in
parallel; conversely networking/infrastructure/server SoCs aren't
designed around saving every last microamp of leakage current - even in
the (fairly unlikely) case of the interconnect clocks being
software-gateable at all I would be very surprised if that were ever
exposed directly to Linux (FWIW I believe ACPI essentially *requires*
clocks to be abstracted behind firmware).
Realistically then, explicit clocks are only expected on systems which
care about power management. We can always revisit that assumption if
anything crazy where it isn't the case ever becomes non-theoretical, but
for now it's one I'm entirely comfortable with. If on the other hand it
turns out that we can rely on just a power domain being present wherever
we want RPM, making clocks moot, then all the better.
Robin.
--
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
