On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 05:31:53PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:12:34AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:48:57PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [+ Lorenzo]
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 12:00:18AM -0500, Andy Gross wrote:
> > > > This patch adds the qcom,idle-state-spc compatible to the SPC idle
> > > > state. This compatible indicates that the state is one which supports
> > > > freeze.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > index 208af00..032e411 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
> > > >
> > > > idle-states {
> > > > CPU_SPC: spc {
> > > > - compatible = "arm,idle-state";
> > > > + compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", "arm,idle-state";
> > > > arm,psci-suspend-param = <0x40000002>;
> > > > entry-latency-us = <130>;
> > > > exit-latency-us = <150>;
> > >
> > > This looks suspicious.
> > >
> > > This is a PSCI idle state, and we have a PSCI driver driven by the
> > > generic ARM cpuidle driver.
> > >
> > > Why do we need a qcom-specific compatible here?
> > >
> > > Surely we should be able to use the idle code in a generic fashion to
> > > driver suspend-to-idle?
> >
> > We need a way to identify specific idle states that support
> > suspend-to-idle. In addition, when we have identified the states, we
> > may have to configure the enter_freeze() function.
> >
> > I chose to do this outside of the arm cpuidle driver because I didn't
> > want to add any more DT information aside from the compatible, and I
> > needed a separate place for the Qualcomm specific suspend code. With
> > the compatible, this makes my 32 and 64 bit processor suspend code
> > identical, as we have our own cpuidle driver for the 32 bit procs.
> >
> > An alternative would be to add some facilities to communicate this to
> > the arm cpuidle driver and configure the enter_freeze() function at
> > some later point.
>
> (1) enter_freeze() hooks are not strictly necessary to enable
> suspend-to-idle (they are if we want the tick to be frozen
> on suspend-to-idle, which is different)
I'd think that you'd want the tick frozen. Even if you are going to just call
the deepest freezable idle state in your freeze_function, you don't want to keep
getting woken up as this costs some power usage
> (2) If I understand your code correctly you have to set the suspend
> ops hook to make sure suspend-to-idle is enabled. This is a core
> code issue rather than anything else, given that suspend-to-idle
> (hey it is based on CPUidle !) does NOT rely on suspend ops to
> function.
It only requires having suspend_ops and a valid function. Otherwise you can
never suspend and never exercise the freeze portion of the cpuidle code.
>
> So the gist is: as far as I am concerned you do not need any of this
> code to enable (yes you need PSCI idle states but no
> qcom,idle-state-spc compatible string whatsoever) suspend-to-idle
> on ARM64 on top of PSCI, let me know what I am missing.
If we had the facilities in the arm cpuidle driver then for 64 bit processors, I
wouldn't have to do anything except provision my suspend_ops + valid function.
For 32 bit, we actually already use this compat tag and I just have to add code
in the spm driver (qcom cpuidle) to init the suspend_ops.
Regards,
Andy
--
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
