Il 08/11/23 16:44, Steven Price ha scritto:
On 02/11/2023 14:26, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Currently, the GPU is being internally powered off for runtime suspend
and turned back on for runtime resume through commands sent to it, but
note that the GPU doesn't need to be clocked during the poweroff state,
hence it is possible to save some power on selected platforms.
Add suspend and resume handlers for full system sleep and then add
a new panfrost_gpu_pm enumeration and a pm_features variable in the
panfrost_compatible structure: BIT(GPU_PM_CLK_DIS) will be used to
enable this power saving technique only on SoCs that are able to
safely use it.
Note that this was implemented only for the system sleep case and not
for runtime PM because testing on one of my MediaTek platforms showed
issues when turning on and off clocks aggressively (in PM runtime)
resulting in a full system lockup.
Doing this only for full system sleep never showed issues during my
testing by suspending and resuming the system continuously for more
than 100 cycles.
Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Note: Even after fixing the panfrost_power_off() function, I'm still
getting issues with turning off the clocks at .runtime_suspend() but
this time, instead of getting a GPU lockup, the entire SoC will deadlock
bringing down the entire system with it (so it's even worst!) :-)
Ouch! Hopefully that's a SoC issue as I can't see anything that should
cause problems. But note that if the GPU is powered down during a bus
transaction that can lock up the entire bus.
drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++--
drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.h | 11 ++++
2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c
index 28f7046e1b1a..2022ed76a620 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.c
@@ -403,7 +403,7 @@ void panfrost_device_reset(struct panfrost_device *pfdev)
panfrost_job_enable_interrupts(pfdev);
}
-static int panfrost_device_resume(struct device *dev)
+static int panfrost_device_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
{
struct panfrost_device *pfdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
@@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ static int panfrost_device_resume(struct device *dev)
return 0;
}
-static int panfrost_device_suspend(struct device *dev)
+static int panfrost_device_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
{
struct panfrost_device *pfdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
@@ -426,5 +426,58 @@ static int panfrost_device_suspend(struct device *dev)
return 0;
}
-EXPORT_GPL_RUNTIME_DEV_PM_OPS(panfrost_pm_ops, panfrost_device_suspend,
- panfrost_device_resume, NULL);
+static int panfrost_device_resume(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct panfrost_device *pfdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ if (pfdev->comp->pm_features & BIT(GPU_PM_CLK_DIS)) {
+ ret = clk_enable(pfdev->clock);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (pfdev->bus_clock) {
+ ret = clk_enable(pfdev->bus_clock);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_bus_clk;
+ }
+ }
+
+ ret = pm_runtime_force_resume(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_resume;
+
+ return 0;
+
+err_resume:
+ if (pfdev->comp->pm_features & BIT(GPU_PM_CLK_DIS) && pfdev->bus_clock)
+ clk_disable(pfdev->bus_clock);
+err_bus_clk:
+ if (pfdev->comp->pm_features & BIT(GPU_PM_CLK_DIS))
+ clk_disable(pfdev->clock);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+static int panfrost_device_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+ struct panfrost_device *pfdev = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = pm_runtime_force_suspend(dev);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (pfdev->comp->pm_features & BIT(GPU_PM_CLK_DIS)) {
+ clk_disable(pfdev->clock);
+
+ if (pfdev->bus_clock)
+ clk_disable(pfdev->bus_clock);
NIT: I would normally expect panfrost_device_resume() to have the
opposite order. I'm not sure if there's an expected order here but I
feel like the bus should be enabled before core - so _resume() would
need to be swapped round.
Actually, in panfrost_clk_init(), "bus" gets enabled after core... I'm
not sure whether this was intentional or not either - but for consistency
I will swap them in suspend (turning off `bus_clock` first, 'clock` after)
as that's how it's done in panfrost_clk_fini() as well (except there the
clocks are also unprepared).
Though, I would agree on the logical fact that bus should get disabled
after core...
Cheers,
Angelo
Other than that:
Reviewed-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Steve
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+EXPORT_GPL_DEV_PM_OPS(panfrost_pm_ops) = {
+ RUNTIME_PM_OPS(panfrost_device_runtime_suspend, panfrost_device_runtime_resume, NULL)
+ SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(panfrost_device_suspend, panfrost_device_resume)
+};
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.h
index 1ef38f60d5dc..d7f179eb8ea3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_device.h
@@ -25,6 +25,14 @@ struct panfrost_perfcnt;
#define NUM_JOB_SLOTS 3
#define MAX_PM_DOMAINS 5
+/**
+ * enum panfrost_gpu_pm - Supported kernel power management features
+ * @GPU_PM_CLK_DIS: Allow disabling clocks during system suspend
+ */
+enum panfrost_gpu_pm {
+ GPU_PM_CLK_DIS,
+};
+
struct panfrost_features {
u16 id;
u16 revision;
@@ -75,6 +83,9 @@ struct panfrost_compatible {
/* Vendor implementation quirks callback */
void (*vendor_quirk)(struct panfrost_device *pfdev);
+
+ /* Allowed PM features */
+ u8 pm_features;
};
struct panfrost_device {
_______________________________________________
Kernel mailing list -- kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to kernel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
