On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 09:57:22PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> For example MSM8974 has mx voltage rail exposed as regulator and only cx
> voltage rail is exposed as power domain. This power domain (cx) is
> attached internally in power domain and cannot be attached in this driver.
>
> Fixes: 8750cf392394 ("remoteproc: qcom_q6v5_mss: Allow replacing regulators with power domains")
> Co-developed-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Matti Lehtimäki <matti.lehtimaki@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Move MSM8974 mx-supply from "fallback_proxy_supply" to
> "proxy_supply" to match updated DT schema
> - Add fixes tag
> ---
> drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c
> index e78bd986dc3f256effce4470222c0a5faeea86ec..e2523b01febf393abfe50740a68b85a04011293c 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_mss.c
> @@ -1828,6 +1828,13 @@ static int q6v5_pds_attach(struct device *dev, struct device **devs,
> if (!pd_names)
> return 0;
>
> + /* Handle single power domain */
> + if (dev->pm_domain) {
> + devs[0] = dev;
> + pm_runtime_enable(dev);
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> while (pd_names[num_pds])
> num_pds++;
Hmm, I think you should put the above if condition below this loop and
verify that num_pds == 1. Otherwise this would hide the error condition
if the platform needs multple PDs, but someone only specifies one of
them in the DT. i.e.
if (num_pds == 1 && dev->pm_domain) {
// ...
}
>
> @@ -1851,8 +1858,15 @@ static int q6v5_pds_attach(struct device *dev, struct device **devs,
> static void q6v5_pds_detach(struct q6v5 *qproc, struct device **pds,
> size_t pd_count)
> {
> + struct device *dev = qproc->dev;
> int i;
>
> + /* Handle single power domain */
> + if (dev->pm_domain && pd_count) {
Maybe if (pd_count == 1 && dev->pm_domain) for consistency with the
above then.
> + pm_runtime_disable(dev);
I'm guessing it does, but just to make sure: Have you verified that the
power domain is indeed voted for off after this call to
pm_runtime_disable()? Start the remoteproc and when it's booted inspect
/sys/kernel/debug/pm_genpd/pm_genpd_summary to see if the PD/remoteproc
dev is suspended.
Thanks,
Stephan
