Hello Rajendra,
On 06/13/2018 11:54 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On 06/14/2018 06:02 AM, David Collins wrote:
>> On 06/11/2018 09:40 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
...
>>> +static int rpmhpd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *domain)
>>> +{
>>> + struct rpmhpd *pd = domain_to_rpmhpd(domain);
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&rpmhpd_lock);
>>> +
>>> + if (pd->level[0] == 0)
>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 0);
>>
>> I'm not sure that we want to have the 'pd->level[0] == 0' check,
>> especially when considering aggregation with the peer pd. I understand
>> its intention to try to keep enable state and level setting orthogonal.
>> However, as it stands now, the final request sent to hardware would differ
>> depending upon the order of calls. Consider the following example.
>>
>> Initial state:
>> pd->level[0] == 0
>> pd->corner = 5, pd->enabled = true, pd->active_only = false
>> pd->peer->corner = 7, pd->peer->enabled = true, pd->peer->active_only = true
>>
>> Outstanding requests:
>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 7, RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 7, RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 5
>>
>> Case A:
>> 1. set pd->corner = 6
>> --> new value request: RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>> --> duplicate value requests: RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 7,
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 7
>> 2. power_off pd->peer
>> --> no requests
>
> I am not sure why there would be no requests, since we do end up aggregating
> with pd->peer->corner = 0.
> So the final state would be
>
> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6
> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
Argh, my example was ruined by a one character typo. I meant to have:
Initial state:
pd->level[0] != 0
>>
>> Final state:
>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 7
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 7
>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>>
>> Case B:
>> 1. power_off pd->peer
>> --> no requests
>
> Here it would be again be aggregation based on pd->peer->corner = 0
> so,
> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = max(5, 0) = 5
> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 5
> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = max(5, 0) = 5
>
>> 2. set pd->corner = 6
>> --> new value requests: RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 6,
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6, RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>>
>> Final state:
>> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = 6
>> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6
>> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = 6
>
> correct,
> RPMH_ACTIVE_ONLY_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
> RPMH_WAKE_ONLY_STATE = 6
> RPMH_SLEEP_STATE = max(6, 0) = 6
>
>>
>> Without the check, Linux would vote for the lowest supported level when
>> power_off is called. This seems semantically reasonable given that the
>> consumer is ok with the power domain going fully off and that would be the
>> closest that we can get.
>
> So are you suggesting I replace
>
>>> + if (pd->level[0] == 0)
>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, 0);
>
> with
>
>>> + ret = rpmhpd_aggregate_corner(pd, pd->level[0]);
Yes, this is the modification that I'm requesting.
> I can see what you said above makes sense but if its
>> Initial state:
>> pd->level[0] != 0
>
> Was that what you meant?
Yes.
> I can't seem to see any ARC resources on 845 which seem to
> have a 'pd->level[0] != 0' but looks like thats certainly a
> possibility we need to handle?
The command DB interface for ARC resources was designed to support the
situation of a power domain that could not be fully disabled and is
instead limited to some minimum level.
Thanks,
David
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
