On 11/26/2014 05:40 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 05:02:52PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 11/25/2014 12:44 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
I can't help but think that this all sounds like the RPM isn't mapping
very well onto practical systems and needs revisiting in future
versions... for example with what I'm parsing out of the above an
active+sleep set command or otherwise having the two modes tied together
for some regulators would make the whole problem go away.
We create the 'active only' regulators for consumers that actually need
them. From the set of regulators on a board only a couple need this
That's what I don't think is making any sense. Creating two regulators
for the same thing seems like bad news, at best it's going to make reuse
harder.
What reuse is harder?
treatment. I don't see how tying the two states together via an active+sleep
set command would make this problem go away for the cases I already
described before, i.e. CPU wants some voltage and other IO devices want
another voltage and the CPU doesn't care what the voltage is when the CPU is
Not paying attention to requests from a disabled consumer seems like
something we should be able to do in general.
Sounds good.
in idle or suspend. Having a combination active + sleep set command would be
nice. The RPM already sort of supports this by allowing you to only modify
the active set. If you never modify the sleep set, then the RPM just applies
whatever is in the active set to the sleep set. We can probably go through
and figure out what resources could get away with only using the active set
so we can cut down on sleep set requests that are always the same between
active and sleep set.
This version is starting to sound a lot like the consumers need to be
able to do an idle to sleep transition and change their settings when
they enter their sleep mode. It seems a lot like what many devices do
now when they enter and exit runtime PM but with deferred application
depending on other users (for regulators I'm assuming the active set
would actually be a subset of the sleep set of valid voltages).
Yes, one key point is that we want the transition to be handled by the
RPM co-processor. The reason being that usually we want to change
settings after the last CPU transitions into their sleep mode. There's
no way to do this without relying on some external co-processor to go
and change the settings for us.
I think any duplication that's going on sounds like a consequence of
the way this is currently implemented. I think based on what I *think*
you're saying the RPM driver probably ought to be hiding this and adding
a property which makes the active and sleep sets track each other with
normal suspend mode control otherwise. That could potentially be done
in the core, though the tracking would be substantial surgery.
Sorry I don't follow this part. It's about more than suspend, we also care
about idle. I agree that pushing the concept of active vs. sleep into the
framework is substantial.
That's not what it seemed like people had been talking about up until
this most recent e-mail, you'd been talking about suspend mode. The
starting point was mapping onto the suspend support the regulator has.
Hm? I've been saying "idle and suspend" each time. Perhaps the initial
discussion about regulator suspend support threw things off.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
