On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:05:36AM -0700, Lina Iyer wrote:
[...]
> On Mon, Dec 07 2015 at 07:53 -0700, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >>+/**
> >>+ * of_setup_cpu_domain_topology() - Setup the CPU domains from the CPU
> >>+ * topology node in DT.
> >>+ *
> >>+ * @ops: The PM domain suspend/resume ops for all the domains in the topology
> >>+ */
> >>+int of_setup_cpu_domain_topology(const struct cpu_pd_ops *ops)
> >>+{
> >>+ struct device_node *cn, *map;
> >>+ int ret = 0;
> >>+
> >>+ cn = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
> >>+ if (!cn) {
> >>+ pr_err("No CPU information found in DT\n");
> >>+ return 0;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >>+ map = of_get_child_by_name(cn, "cpu-map");
> >>+ if (!map)
> >>+ goto out;
> >
> >I commented on this before, is this reliance on cpu-map necessary ?
> >Could not you just rely on the "power-domains" phandle in the cpu
> >nodes to build the cpumask for a specific power domain ? I think
> >you should try to decouple the concept of power domain from the cpu-map
> >cluster and I think this would also simplify your code in the process.
> >
> Sorry, I missed seeing your comment on this earlier.
>
> Hmm, it can be done, but I felt out of place to define just power
> domains that have no devices in Linux, since they are handled in PSCI,
> but also have no relation to PSCI. Hence, I felt cpu-map to be a good
> place for the cluster domain. But I am not strongly inclined. I can
> remove them from the cpu-map and keep them as separate nodes. However,
> it would be nice to have a way to say these nodes are PSCI controlled.
I do not agree with the way you described the system.
Here is how I see it. DT must model HW, and in HW your cpus will be part
of a power domain(s) that of course can be hierarchical. Every cpus has a
phandle to the power domain it belongs into, and to group them as "cluster"
you should follow the power domains hierarchy (ie if you have a cluster
power domain, it will contain the core power domains, through the
hierarchy it is easy to detect what cpus are part of the cluster power
domain by detecting which cpus are part of its children). It is much
simpler than the current solution I think, you get rid of cpu-map
dependency (honestly it is a bit weird what you did, with cpu-map
containing a cluster phandle to a power domain and cpu phandles to
cpu nodes, and the DT bindings you posted does not seem to match your
dts).
For PSCI, nothing prevents you from defining the same bindings except
that the power domain(s) is not explicitly controlled by the OS, still,
the DT would always describe the HW and you can use it to detect the
power domain topology and which cpus are part of a given power domain.
Please let me know what you think, thanks.
Lorenzo
>
> Thanks,
> Lina
>
> >So to sum it up, I'd suggest you build the power domain cpumask by
> >enumerating the cpus pointing at a specific power-domain node.
> >
>
> >>+
> >>+ ret = of_parse_cpu_pd(map, ops);
> >>+ if (ret != 0)
> >>+ goto out_map;
> >>+
> >>+out_map:
> >>+ of_node_put(map);
> >>+out:
> >>+ of_node_put(cn);
> >>+ return ret;
> >>+}
> >>+EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_setup_cpu_domain_topology);
> >>diff --git a/include/linux/cpu-pd.h b/include/linux/cpu-pd.h
> >>index 489ee2f..e8290db 100644
> >>--- a/include/linux/cpu-pd.h
> >>+++ b/include/linux/cpu-pd.h
> >>@@ -32,4 +32,5 @@ struct cpu_pm_domain {
> >> struct generic_pm_domain *of_init_cpu_pm_domain(struct device_node *dn,
> >> const struct cpu_pd_ops *ops);
> >> int of_attach_cpu_pm_domain(struct device_node *dn);
> >>+int of_setup_cpu_domain_topology(const struct cpu_pd_ops *ops);
> >> #endif /* __CPU_PD_H__ */
> >>--
> >>2.1.4
> >>
>
--
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
