On Thu, Jun 23 2016 at 12:19 -0600, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 12:04:51PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Jun 23 2016 at 11:35 -0600, Mark Rutland wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 01:36:37PM -0600, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>From: Axel Haslam <ahaslam+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>Update DT bindings to describe idle states of PM domains.
>>
>>Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Signed-off-by: Marc Titinger <mtitinger+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>[Lina: Added state properties, removed state names, wakeup-latency,
>>added of_pm_genpd_init() API, pruned commit text]
>>Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>[Ulf: Moved around code to make it compile properly, rebased on top of multiple state support]
>>---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 70 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+)
>>
>>diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>index 025b5e7..41e8dda 100644
>>--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>@@ -29,6 +29,43 @@ Optional properties:
>> specified by this binding. More details about power domain specifier are
>> available in the next section.
>>
>>+- power-states : A phandle of an idle-state that shall be soaked into a
>>+ generic domain power state.
>
>It's somewhat unfortunate that this gives us two possible locations for
>idle state lists (under the /cpus node and in a pm-domains node),
>especially as it's not clear what would happen were a DT to have both.
>
>I would prefer that we extend the existing bindings such that states can
>refer to the power domains which they affect.
>
I agree. The CPU idle states have become defined to be specific to CPUs.
PM Domain idle states are generic for any type of domain. I am hoping at
some point, we could converge and use the same idle state, but that
would mean changing the CPU idle states to make it generic.
Outside of CPU idling, I don't fully understand how this will be used,
so it's not clear to me what would need to be made generic. Apologies
for my ignorance there.
There may be non-PSCI ARM v7 CPU domains that may have domain controller
drivers in the kernel. They would not hook into the ARM PSCI frameworks.
It is still cpuidle though.
At some point, during my development, I did use the arm,idle-state for
domains as well, but the binding definitions were too restrictive for
a generic PM domain.
I would be willing to make the change to CPU idle states to make it
generic and then we could just reference domain and CPU idle states
using the same bindings. Are we okay with that, specifically,
arm,psci-suspend-param? This binding is very restrictive in its
description. What we pass to the platform driver upon choosing a domain
state is very platform specific and therefore has to be generic in its
description.
I was suggesting that for PSCI we should consistently us
arm,psci-suspend-param, not that this should be used for all power
domain state data.
I imagine that mechanisms for powering down power domains will have
varied requirements on data they require (and may require more than can
be encoded in a u32), and I don't think it's best to try to force a
single representation in the DT for that. It would be better to allow
them to define the properties which they require.
The only way to do that is to push the DT parsing to the platform
drivers. In the case of CPU domains controlled by PSCI, we could use the
arm,idle-states but any other generic domain, may need to define their
own bindings and fill up the domain states before initiailizing the domain.
While this approach pushes the onus on to the platform code, I am fine
with it. Is that what you were thinking too?
Thanks,
Lina
--
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
