Daniel,
On 09/05/2014 04:18 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On 13:22-20140827, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 27 August 2014 03:35 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Kevin Hilman
>>>> <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> + Daniel (cpuidle maintainer)
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> +static int omap_enter_idle_smp(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>>>>> + struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>>>>>> + int index)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + struct idle_statedata *cx = state_ptr + index;
>>>>>> + unsigned long flag;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mpu_lock, flag);
>>>>>> + cx->mpu_state_vote++;
>>>>>> + if (cx->mpu_state_vote == num_online_cpus()) {
>>>>>> + pwrdm_set_logic_retst(mpu_pd, cx->mpu_logic_state);
>>>>>> + omap_set_pwrdm_state(mpu_pd, cx->mpu_state);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mpu_lock, flag);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + omap4_enter_lowpower(dev->cpu, cx->cpu_state);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mpu_lock, flag);
>>>>>> + if (cx->mpu_state_vote == num_online_cpus())
>>>>>> + omap_set_pwrdm_state(mpu_pd, PWRDM_POWER_ON);
>>>>>> + cx->mpu_state_vote--;
>>>>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mpu_lock, flag);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + return index;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, maybe OMAP5/DRA7 CPUidle driver should be a new one based on MCPM?
>>>>
>>>> Trying to understand benefit of MCPM here - at least without a deeper
>>>> understanding of mcpm infrastructure benefits (first look seemed a
>>>> little heavy for OMAP5/DRA7 needs).
>>>>
>>>> Neither DRA7/OMAP5 are multi-cluster, the SoCs are not targetted for
>>>> "OFF" of CPU1/0, we have mercury hardware to help with context and
>>>> sync issues.
>>>>
>>>> Being able to reuse most of existing OMAP4 infrastructure code is
>>>> useful as well to leave the existing omap4 framework as being lighter
>>>> in complexity -esp in a cpuidle like hot path?
>>>>
>>>> The spin_lock is only for the programming of MPU power domain in a
>>>> consistent manner - I suppose might have been the trigger for
>>>> proposing mcpm?
>>>>
>>> Mostly not....
>>>
>>> I think this is coming because last time Nicolas Pitre tried to convert
>>> the OMAP CPUIdle into MCPM but because of various ordering requirements,
>>> OMAP wasn't suitable and then the plan was dropped later.
>>>
>>> Just to make clear, OMAP OMAP5/DRA7 as well the ordering requirement
>>> remains the same for deeper states. Its just the mercury retention state
>>> which we are able to enter without ordering requirements and hence
>>> the voting scheme.
>>
>> Ah, OK. This is the part that I'm missing. So for deeper states you'll
>> need to be using omap_enter_idle_coupled()
>>
>>> Hope this clarifies to you as well as Kevin just in case he missed the
>>> part of the deeper C-states requirements.
>>
>> Yes, thanks for clarifying.
>>
>> That being said, I think MCPM can now do essentially what the coupled
>> states code is doing. Even so, that's probably not a reason to hold up
>> this patch, but Daniel gets to make that call.
>
>
> Gentle ping.. You can find the discussion and the patch here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4764661/
>
Ping on this again.. we are pretty close to approaching v3.18 merge
window and this discussion has'nt gotten further.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
