On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 10:35:17PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > Disabling RPMCC clocks can be a bit touchy. If we can't guarantee all > (or at least most) of the oneline peripherals ask the interconnect > framework to keep their buses online and guarantee enough bandwidth, > we're relying on bootloader defaults to keep the said buses alive through > RPM requests and rate setting on RPM clocks. > > Without that in place, the RPM clocks are never enabled in the CCF, which > qualifies them to be cleaned up, since - as far as Linux is concerned - > nobody's using them and they're just wasting power. Doing so will end > tragically, as within miliseconds we'll get *some* access attempt on an > unlocked bus which will cause a platform crash. > > On the other hand, if we want to save power and put well-supported > platforms to sleep, we should be shutting off at least some of these > clocks (this time with a clear distinction of which ones are *actually* > not in use, coming from the interconnect driver). > > To differentiate between these two cases while not breaking older DTs, > introduce an opt-in property to correctly mark RPM clocks as enabled > after handoff (the initial max freq vote) and hence qualify them for the > common unused clock cleanup. > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml > index 2a95bf8664f9..386153f61971 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml > @@ -58,6 +58,12 @@ properties: > minItems: 1 > maxItems: 2 > > + qcom,clk-disable-unused: > + type: boolean > + description: > + Indicates whether unused RPM clocks can be shut down with the common > + unused clock cleanup. Requires a functional interconnect driver. > + I'm surprised that Stephen Boyd did not bring up his usual "rant" here of moving the interconnect clock voting out of rpmcc into the interconnect drivers (see [1], [2]). :-) I was a bit "cautious" about it back then but at this point I think it kind of makes sense. Make sure to read Stephen's detailed explanation in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/159796605593.334488.8355244657387381953@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ We keep looking for workarounds to prevent the CCF from "messing" with interconnect-related clocks. But the CCF cannot mess with "clocks" it does not manage. The RPM interconnect drivers already talk directly to the RPM in drivers/interconnect/qcom/smd-rpm.c. I think it should be quite easy to move the QCOM_SMD_RPM_BUS_CLK relates defines over there and just bypass the CCF entirely. For backwards compatibility (for platforms without interconnect drivers) one could either assume that the bootloader bandwidth votes will be sufficient and just leave those clocks completely alone. Or the "icc_smd_rpm" platform device could initially make max votes similar to the rpmcc device. By coincidence the "icc_smd_rpm" platform device is always created, no matter how the device tree looks or if the platform actually has an interconnect driver. Stephan [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/159796605593.334488.8355244657387381953@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20211209091005.D3344C004DD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
