On 29/03/2023 12:45, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 00:51, Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 24/03/2023 09:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
Domain idle states do not use 'idle-state-name' and 'local-timer-stop':
sm8250-hdk.dtb: domain-idle-states: cluster-sleep-0: 'idle-state-name', 'local-timer-stop' do not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
Reported-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230323-topic-sm8450-upstream-dt-bindings-fixes-v1-4-3ead1e418fe4@xxxxxxxxxx/
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
index 79d67b466856..9cf2de87c632 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
@@ -354,12 +354,10 @@ BIG_CPU_SLEEP_0: cpu-sleep-1-0 {
domain-idle-states {
CLUSTER_SLEEP_0: cluster-sleep-0 {
compatible = "domain-idle-state";
- idle-state-name = "cluster-llcc-off";
arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x4100c244>;
entry-latency-us = <3264>;
exit-latency-us = <6562>;
min-residency-us = <9987>;
- local-timer-stop;
Hmm, so we support setting the broadcast timer when using plain PSCI
idle states, but not when using the domain-based idle states.
Ulf, Rafael, Daniel, is that an omission for the domain-based idle
support? Or is it handled in some other way?
I am not sure that we need a DT binding specifically for this, or do we?
So far, the timer is managed from platform specific code. For some
Qcom based platforms, the timer should be managed in
rpmh_rsc_write_next_wakeup(), which makes use of
dev_pm_genpd_get_next_hrtimer().
I'm not sure whether I fully follow this (I might lack some
understanding here). I thought that with "local-timer-stop" (well,
CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP), we were switching to the broadcast timer
before a core/cluster goes into idle state with no local timer, while
with rpmh_rsc_write_next_wakeup() we write that only before shutting
down the last core (see the comment at rpmh_flush()).
This might be an expected thing, I probably don't have enough
understanding of the cpuidle internals to judge this.
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
