On 23-04-05 16:11:18, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Abel, Saravana, > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 06:59, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 23-03-30 12:50:44, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 4:27 AM Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 23-03-27 17:17:28, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 12:38 PM Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There have been already a couple of tries to make the genpd "disable > > > > > > unused" late initcall skip the powering off of domains that might be > > > > > > needed until later on (i.e. until some consumer probes). The conclusion > > > > > > was that the provider could return -EBUSY from the power_off callback > > > > > > until the provider's sync state has been reached. This patch series tries > > > > > > to provide a proof-of-concept that is working on Qualcomm platforms. > > > > > > > > > > I'm giving my thoughts in the cover letter instead of spreading it > > > > > around all the patches so that there's context between the comments. > > > > > > > > > > 1) Why can't all the logic in this patch series be implemented at the > > > > > framework level? And then allow the drivers to opt into this behavior > > > > > by setting the sync_state() callback. > > > > > > > > > > That way, you can land it only for QC drivers by setting up > > > > > sync_state() callback only for QC drivers, but actually have the same > > > > > code function correctly for non-QC drivers too. And then once we have > > > > > this functionality working properly for QC drivers for one kernel > > > > > version (or two), we'll just have the framework set the device's > > > > > driver's sync_state() if it doesn't have one already. > > > > > > > > I think Ulf has already NACK'ed that approach here: > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAPDyKFon35wcQ+5kx3QZb-awN_S_q8y1Sir-G+GoxkCvpN=iiA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > I would have NACK'ed that too because that's an incomplete fix. As I > > > said further below, the fix needs to be at the aggregation level where > > > you aggregate all the current consumer requests. In there, you need to > > > add in the "state at boot" input that gets cleared out after a > > > sync_state() call is received for that power domain. > > > > > > > So, just to make sure I understand your point. You would rather have the > > genpd_power_off check if 'state at boot' is 'on' and return busy and > > then clear then, via a generic genpd sync state you would mark 'state at > > boot' as 'off' and queue up a power off request for each PD from there. > > And as for 'state at boot' it would check the enable bit through > > provider. > > > > Am I right so far? > > I am not sure I completely follow what you are suggesting here. Please have a look at this: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/abelvesa/linux.git/commit/?h=qcom/genpd/ignore_unused_until_sync_state&id=4f9e6140dfe77884012383f8ba2140cadb62ca4a Keep in mind that is WIP for now. Once I have something, I'll post it on mailing list. Right now, there is a missing piece mentioned in that commit message. > > Although, let me point out that there is no requirement from the genpd > API point of view, that the provider needs to be a driver. This means > that the sync_state callback may not even be applicable for all genpd > providers. Yes, I'm considering that case too. > > In other words, it looks to me that we may need some new genpd helper > functions, no matter what. More importantly, it looks like we need an > opt-in behaviour, unless we can figure out a common way for genpd to > understand whether the sync_state thing is going to be applicable or > not. Maybe Saravana has some ideas around this? > > Note that, I don't object to extending genpd to be more clever and to > share common code, of course. We could, for example, make > genpd_power_off() to bail out earlier, rather than calling the > ->power_off() callback and waiting for it to return -EBUSY. Both of > you have pointed this out to me, in some of the earlier > replies/discussions too. The above link basically does this. I hope this is what Saravana has in mind as well. > > > > > > > And suggested this new approach that this patch series proposes. > > > > (Unless I missunderstood his point) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) sync_state() is not just about power on/off. It's also about the > > > > > power domain level. Can you handle that too please? > > > > > > > > Well, this patchset only tries to delay the disabling of unused power > > > > domains until all consumers have had a chance to probe. So we use sync > > > > state only to queue up a power-off request to make sure those unused > > > > ones get disabled. > > > > > > Sure, but the design is completely unusable for a more complete > > > sync_state() behavior. I'm okay if you want to improve the > > > sync_state() behavior in layers, but don't do it in a way where the > > > current design will definitely not work for what you want to add in > > > the future. > > > > But you would still be OK with the qcom_cc sync state wrapper, I guess, > > right? Your concern is only about the sync state callback being not > > genpd generic one, AFAIU. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) In your GDSC drivers, it's not clear to me if you are preventing > > > > > power off until sync_state() only for GDSCs that were already on at > > > > > boot. So if an off-at-boot GDSC gets turned on, and then you attempt > > > > > to turn it off before all its consumers have probed, it'll fail to > > > > > power it off even though that wasn't necessary? > > > > > > > > I think we can circumvent looking at a GDSC by knowing it there was ever > > > > a power on request since boot. I'll try to come up with something in the > > > > new version. > > > > > > Please no. There's nothing wrong with reading the GDSC values. Please > > > read them and don't turn on GDSC's that weren't on at boot. > > > > Sorry for the typos above, I basically said that for this concern of > > yours, we can add the 'state at boot' thing you mentioned above by > > looking at the GDSC (as in reading reg). > > > > > > > > Otherwise you are making it a hassle for the case where there is a > > > consumer without a driver for a GDSC that was off at boot. You are now > > > forcing the use of timeouts or writing to state_synced file. Those > > > should be absolute last resorts, but you are making that a requirement > > > with your current implementation. If you implement it correctly by > > > reading the GDSC register, things will "just work". And it's not even > > > hard to do. > > > > > > NACK'ed until this is handled correctly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) The returning -EBUSY when a power off is attempted seems to be > > > > > quite wasteful. The framework will go through the whole sequence of > > > > > trying to power down, send the notifications and then fail and then > > > > > send the undo notifications. Combined with point (2) I think this can > > > > > be handled better at the aggregation level in the framework to avoid > > > > > even going that far into the power off sequence. > > > > > > > > Again, have a look at [1] (above). > > > > > > See my reply above. If you do it properly at the framework level, this > > > can be done in a clean way and will work for all power domains. > > > > > > -Saravana > > > > > > > > > > > Ulf, any thoughts on this 4th point? > > Please, see my reply above. > > [...] > > Kind regards > Uffe
