On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:01:27AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Dave Martin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:23:04PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add machine-dependent MCPM call-backs for Exynos5420. These are used
> > > > to power up/down the secondary CPUs during boot, shutdown, s2r and
> > > > switching.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > See comments inline.
> >
> > I won't duplicate Nico's review, but I have a couple of extra comments/
> > questions, below.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 0000000..46d4968
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/mcpm-exynos.c
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,444 @@
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > +static void exynos_cluster_power_control(unsigned int cluster, int enable)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long timeout = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(20);
> > > > + unsigned int status, val = EXYNOS_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_DIS;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (enable)
> > > > + val = EXYNOS_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN;
> > > > +
> > > > + status = __raw_readl(EXYNOS_COMMON_STATUS(cluster));
> > > > + if ((status & EXYNOS_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN) == val)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + __raw_writel(val, EXYNOS_COMMON_CONFIGURATION(cluster));
> > > > + /* Wait until cluster power control is applied */
> > > > + while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > > > + status = __raw_readl(EXYNOS_COMMON_STATUS(cluster));
> > > > +
> > > > + if ((status & EXYNOS_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN) == val)
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + cpu_relax();
> > > > + }
> > > > + pr_warn("timed out waiting for cluster %u to power %s\n", cluster,
> > > > + enable ? "on" : "off");
> > >
> > > You should not have to wait for the power status to change here.
> > > Simply signaling the desired state and returning is all that is
> > > expected. And because IRQs are turned off, it is likely that
> > > time_before(jiffies, timeout) will always be true anyway because jiffies
> > > are not updated if there is no other CPU to service the timer interrupt.
> > >
> > > The actual power status should be polled for in the mcpm_finish()
> > > method only.
> >
> > Depending on the power controller, it might be possible for writes to
> > the controller to be lost or not acted upon, if a previous change is
> > still pending.
> >
> > Does this issue apply to the exynos power controller?
>
> Given the way the code is structured now, I suppose that has not been
> the case so far.
It depends on the purpose of the polling loop. If it was added to resolve
a race between a power-up and a power-down that is complete in MCPM but
still pending in the hardware, than that would suggest the power controller
does have this behaviour.
But I'm just guessing.
Abhilash, can you comment?
> >
> > If this is the case, it might be necessary to ensure before a power-up
> > request, that the power controller has caught up and reports the
> > cluster/CPU as down. Putting this poll before the write to the
> > power controller maximises the chance of pipelining useful work
> > in the meantime. Putting the poll after the write is the worst case.
>
> More useful might be a check on the actual _control_ bit. If the
> control bits may be read back then I expect the indicated state will
> happen even if delayed.
Quite likely, yes. It just depends on what the hardware specs say.
Cheers
---Dave
--
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
