On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 06:47:43PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 18:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:39:34PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > Introduce a PSCI DT helper function, psci_dt_attach_cpu(), which takes a
> > > CPU number as an in-parameter and tries to attach the CPU's struct device
> > > to its corresponding PM domain.
> > >
> > > Let's makes use of dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(), as it allows us to
> > > specify "psci" as the "name" of the PM domain to attach to. Additionally,
> > > let's also prepare the attached device to be power managed via runtime PM.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci.h | 6 ++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c
> > > index 3f5143ccc3e0..7429fd7626a1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-psci-domain.c
> > > @@ -9,9 +9,11 @@
> > >
> > > #define pr_fmt(fmt) "CPUidle PSCI: " fmt
> > >
> > > +#include <linux/cpu.h>
> > > #include <linux/device.h>
> > > #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > #include <linux/pm_domain.h>
> > > +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> > > #include <linux/psci.h>
> > > #include <linux/slab.h>
> > > #include <linux/string.h>
> > > @@ -279,3 +281,22 @@ static int __init psci_idle_init_domains(void)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > > subsys_initcall(psci_idle_init_domains);
> > > +
> > > +struct device *psci_dt_attach_cpu(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device *dev;
> > > +
> > > + /* Currently limit the hierarchical topology to be used in OSI mode. */
> > > + if (!psci_has_osi_support())
> > > + return NULL;
> > > +
> > > + dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(get_cpu_device(cpu), "psci");
> >
> > This clarifies the need for the fixed name. But why not just go by index 0
> > as the consumer of these psci power-domains will have only one power domain
> > entry. Why do we need this name compulsory ?
>
> The idea is to be future proof. If I recall correctly, the CPU node on
> some QCOM SoCs may also have "CPR" PM domain specified, thus
> "multiple" power-domains could be specified.
>
I am sure we don't want to mx-n-match any power domain provider with
psci. And also I expect in these above mentioned cases, there won't be any
psci power domains.
> In any case, using "psci" doesn't really hurt, right?
>
Doesn't but I don't see need for one as only one should exist, as mentioned
above we don't want mix-n-match with psci ever.
> > Further, it's specified as
> > optional in the generic binding, do we make it "required" for this psci
> > idle states binding anywhere that I missed ?
>
> Good point! Unless you tell me differently, I will update the DT doc
> to clarify this is "required".
>
No but why is my question ? We don't have to. If firmware/DT wants to
specify the name, sure. But it must remain optional IMO.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
