On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:23:06 +0100 Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 09:31:43AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:11:04PM +0100, Kory Maincent wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:54:08 +0100 > > > Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [...] > [...] > > > > > > Ack. So we assume PoDL could have the same interruption events. > > > > [...] > > > > After thinking about it more overnight, I wanted to revisit the idea of > > having a priority strategy per port. Right now, if one port is set to > > static or dynamic mode, all disabled ports seem to have to follow it > > somehow too. This makes it feel like we should have a strategy for the > > whole power domain, not just for each port. > > > > I'm having trouble imagining how a per-port priority strategy would work in > > this setup. Indeed you are right. I was first thinking of using the same port priority for all the ports of a PSE but it seems indeed better to have it by Power domain. > > Another point that came to mind is that we might have two different > > components here, and we need to keep these two parts separate in follow-up > > discussions: > > > > - **Budget Evaluation Strategy**: The static approach seems > > straightforward—if a class requests more than available, appropriate > > actions are taken. However, the dynamic approach has more complexity, such > > as determining the threshold, how long violations can be tolerated, and > > whether a safety margin should be maintained before exceeding maximum load. > > > > - **Disconnection Policy**: Once a budget violation is detected, this > > decides how to react, like which ports should be disconnected and in what > > order. > > > > Would it make more sense to have a unified strategy for power domains, > > where we apply the same budget evaluation mode (static or dynamic) and > > disconnection policy to all ports in that domain? This could make the > > configuration simpler and the power management more predictable. Yes, these policies and the port priority mode should be per power domains. > Except of user reports, do we have documented confirmation about dynamic > Budget Evaluation Strategy in PD692x0 firmware? > > Do this configuration bits are what I called Budget Evaluation Strategy? > Version 3.55: > Bits [3..0]—BT port PM mode > 0x0: The port power that is used for power management purposes is > dynamic (Iport x Vmain). Yes it seems so. I can't find any more configurations on the budget evaluation strategy than the power limit. Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
