> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rafael J. Wysocki > Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 12:51 AM > To: jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Paul Walmsley; Kevin Hilman; Magnus Damm; Linux PM mailing list; > linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; markgross@xxxxxxxxxxx; Jean Pihet > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] PM QoS: add a per-device wake-up > latency constraint class > > Hi, > > On Thursday, June 30, 2011, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> > > > > This patch set is in an RFC state, for review and comments. > > First off, I'm sorry I couldn't review the patchset earlier. > > > In order to implement the new class in PM QoS the following > changes have been > > made: > > > > 1. Add a new PM QoS class for device wake-up constraints > > (PM_QOS_DEV_WAKEUP_LATENCY). > > Due to the per-device nature of the new class the constraints > lists are stored > > inside the device dev_pm_info struct instead of the internal per- > class > > constraints lists. > > The new class is only available from kernel drivers and so is not > exported to > > user space. > > Have you considered a design in which multiple devices may use the > same > list of constraints? It seems plausible that the constraints will > be the > same, for example, for all Ethernet adapters in the system, in which > case it > will be wasteful to duplicate the list of constraints for each of > them. > > > 2. Added a notification of device insertion/removal from the > device PM framework > > to PM QoS. > > This allows to init/de-init the per-device constraints list upon > device insertion > > and removal. > > RFC state for comments and review, barely tested > > I need to have a look at the details, but in principle this means > that the > per-device lists will be usable only after the devices have been > registered. > In particular, this means that it will only be possible to add new > constraints > after registering the device, which may be too late for some use > cases. > > > 3. Make the pm_qos_add_request API more generic by using a > > struct pm_qos_parameters parameter. This allows easy extension in > the future. > > > > 4. Upon a change of the strongest constraint in the > PM_QOS_DEV_WAKEUP_LATENCY > > class a notification chain mechanism is used to take action on the > system. > > This is the proposed way to have PM QoS and the platform dependant > code to > > interact with each other, cf. 4 below. > > I guess you mean 5.? > > I think we will need something in addition to the notifier here. > For example, > I wouldn't like any core code, like runtime PM or cpuidle, to have > to register > a notifier with PM QoS. > > > The notification mechanism now passes the constraint request > struct ptr in > > order for the notifier callback to have access to the full set of > constraint > > data, e.g. the struct device ptr. > > > > 5. cpuidle interaction with the OMAP3 cpuidle handler > > Since cpuidle is a CPU centric framework it decides the MPU next > power state > > based on the MPU exit_latency and target_residency figures. > > > > The rest of the power domains get their next power state > programmed from > > the PM_QOS_DEV_WAKEUP_LATENCY class of the PM QoS framework, via > the device > > wake-up latency constraints. > > > > Note: the exit_latency and target_residency figures of the MPU > include the MPU > > itself and the peripherals needed for the MPU to execute > instructions (e.g. > > main memory, caches, IRQ controller, MMU etc). > > Some of those peripherals can belong to other power domains than > the MPU > > subsystem and so the corresponding latencies must be included in > those figures. > > > > 6. Update the pm_qos_add_request callers to the generic API > > > > 7. Minor clean-ups and rename of struct fields > > > > Questions: > > 1. How to retrieve the device ptr from a given device driver in > order to add > > a constraint on it? > > 2. The device struct has recently been extended with the power > domain > > information. Can this be used to apply the constraints on power > domains? > > Yes, it can in principle, but that will require some work. > > > On-going developments, patches in preparation: > > 1. write Documentation for the new PM QoS class > > I'd wait with that until the code has settled. > > > 2. validate the constraints framework on OMAP4 HW (done on OMAP3) > > 3. refine the power domains wake-up latency and the cpuidle > figures > > > > Based on the master branch of the linux-omap git tree (3.0.0-rc3). > Compile > > tested using OMAP and x86 generic defconfigs. > > Tested on OMAP3 Beagleboard (ES2.x) with full RETention and OFF > modes. > > More detailed comments will follow. Thanks Rafael for reviewing the patches. Jean is currently on summer vacation for 2 weeks and will take this discussion forward once he is back to work on July 18. Regards Vishwa > > Thanks, > Rafael > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
