On 13/04/2024 16:20, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
Some GDSC client drivers require the GDSC mode to be switched dynamically
to HW mode at runtime to gain the power benefits. Typically such client
drivers require the GDSC to be brought up in SW mode initially to enable
the required dependent clocks and configure the hardware to proper state.
Once initial hardware set up is done, they switch the GDSC to HW mode to
save power. At the end of usecase, they switch the GDSC back to SW mode
and disable the GDSC.
Introduce HW_CTRL_TRIGGER flag to register the set_hwmode_dev and
get_hwmode_dev callbacks for GDSC's whose respective client drivers
require the GDSC mode to be switched dynamically at runtime using
dev_pm_genpd_set_hwmode() API.
Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c
index df9618ab7eea..c5f6be8181d8 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gdsc.c
@@ -363,6 +363,39 @@ static int gdsc_disable(struct generic_pm_domain *domain)
return 0;
}
+static int gdsc_set_hwmode(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, struct device *dev, bool mode)
+{
+ struct gdsc *sc = domain_to_gdsc(domain);
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = gdsc_hwctrl(sc, mode);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ /* Wait for 1usec for mode transition to properly complete */
+ udelay(1);
A delay I suspect you don't need - if the HW spec says "takes 1 usec for
this to take effect" that's 1 usec from io write completion from APSS to
another system agent.
You poll for the state transition down below anyway.
I'd be pretty certain that's a redundant delay.
+
+ /*
+ * When GDSC is switched to HW mode, HW can disable the GDSC.
+ * When GDSC is switched back to SW mode, the GDSC will be enabled
+ * again, hence need to poll for GDSC to complete the power up.
+ */
+ if (!mode)
+ return gdsc_poll_status(sc, GDSC_ON);
+
+ return 0;
+}
Other than that, seems fine.
Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
