On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 7:17 PM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hey Anup, > > (keeping all the context since you didn't reply to this mail yet) > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 02:57:05PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > Hey Anup, > > > > I've been meaning to get back to you on this stuff for quite a while, > > but unfortunately I've gotten distracted with other stuff every time I > > got close. Apologies for that :( > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 07:04:57PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 6:05 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 27/07/2022 14:21, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 5:37 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On 27/07/2022 13:43, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Since, there is no dedicated timer node, we use CPU compatible string > > > > > for probing the per-CPU timer. > > > > > > > > Next time you add a properties: > > > > riscv,saata-can-wake-cpu > > > > riscv,usb-can-wake-cpu > > > > riscv,interrupt-controller-can-wake-cpu > > > > > > > > and so on and keep explaining that "historically" you did not define > > > > separate nodes, so thus must be in CPU node. > > > > > > This is a one-of-case with RISC-V DeviceTree where we are living with > > > the fact that there is no timer DT node. If we add a timer DT node now > > > then we have to deal with compatibility for existing platforms. > > > > I don't really understand the argument here. Perhaps this made sense a > > few months ago, but it no longer does IMO. > > > > We have existing platforms that interpreted the SBI spec (or perhaps > > predated the SBI spec in the relevant form?) differently. I've pasted it > > several times now I feel but it's relevant so pasting it here again... > > > > On the subject of suspend, the RISC-V SBI spec states: > > > Request the SBI implementation to put the calling hart in a platform > > > specific suspend (or low power) state specified by the suspend_type > > > parameter. The hart will automatically come out of suspended state and > > > resume normal execution when it receives an interrupt or platform > > > specific hardware event. > > > > This does not cover whether a given event actually reaches the hart or > > not, just what the hart will do if it receives an event. For the > > implementation on the Allwinner D1, timer events are not received during > > suspend. > > > > Through-out the various bits of conversation so far, I have been > > operating on the assumption that on PolarFire SoC, and potentially other > > SiFive based implementations, events from the RISC-V timer do reach a > > hart during suspend. > > I realised while writing this response that I have never actually tested > > it - the C3STOP flag caused problems for me during regular operation & > > not while using some DT defined sleep states. > > I've been learning/piecing together the bits of what is happening here as > > time goes on, so I made an assumption that may or may not be correct, and > > I am still oh-so-far from an understanding. > > I just took it for granted that the existing driver worked correctly for > > "old" SiFive stuff which MPFS is based on & figured that with ~the same > > core complex as the fu540 that we'd behave similarly. > > Perhaps that was not a good idea & please let me know if I've been > > barking up the wrong tree. > > > > Do we know definitively what is/isn't the case for any of the existing > > platforms? > > I can test some stuff, but it'll take some time as it's a bad week in > > my neck of the woods. > > > > > If we add a timer DT node now > > > then we have to deal with compatibility for existing platforms. > > > > In terms of what to encode in a DT, and given the spec never says that > > the timer interrupt must arrive during suspend, we must assume, by > > default, that no timer events arrive during suspend. > > > > We have a bunch of existing platforms that may (do?) get timer events > > during suspend, the opposite of the proposed default behaviour. > > > > I'm trying to follow the line of reasoning but I fail to see how taking > > either the property or node approach allows us to maintain behaviour for > > exiting platforms that that do see timer events during suspend without > > adding *something* to the DT. No matter what we add, we've got some sort > > of backwards compatibility issue, right? > > > > I noted the above: > > > > > Since, there is no dedicated timer node, we use CPU compatible string > > > for probing the per-CPU timer. > > > > If we could rely on the cpu compatible why would we need to add a > > dt-property anyway? Forgive my naivety here, but is the timer event in > > suspend behaviour not a "core complex" level attribute rather than a > > something that can be consistently determined by the cpu compatible? > > > > Either way, we need to figure out why enabling C3STOP is causing other > > timer issues even when we are not in some sort of sleep state & do > > something about that - or figure out some different way to communicate > > the behavioural differences. > > I would expect timers to continue working "normally" with the flag set, > > even if how they work is subtly different? > > On a D1, with the C3STOP "feature" flag set, and it's custom timer > > implementation unused, how do timers behave? > > > > Hopefully I've missed something blatant here Anup! > > So what I missed, as Anup pointed out else where, is: > > > me: > > > I don't really follow. How is there a compatibility issue created by > > > adding a new node that is not added for a new property? Both will > > > require changes to the device tree. (You need not reply here, I am going > > > to review the other thread, it's been on my todo list for too long. Been > > > caught up with non-coherent stuff & our sw release cycle..) > > > > Adding a new timer DT node would mean, the RISC-V timer driver > > will now be probed using the compatible to the new DT node whereas > > the RISC-V timer driver is currently probed using CPU DT nodes. > > In that case, we would have to retain the ability to match against the > "riscv". Spitballing: > - add a new timer node > - keep matching against "riscv" > - look up a timer node during init w/ of_find_matching_node() that > contains any new timer properties > > I think it's unlikely that this will be the last time we have to add > some timer properties & we should avoid doing odd things in a DT to suit > an operating system? > > Would something along those lines work Anup, or am I, yet again, missing > something? I was already working on v3 along these lines. I will try to post a v3 this week itself. Regards, Anup > > Thanks, > Conor. >
