On Thursday, August 11, 2011, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> > > This patch set is in an RFC state, for review and comments. > > High level implementation: > > 1. Preparation of the PM QoS for the addition of a device PM QoS constraints > framework: > . rename and move of the PM QoS implementation files to kernel/power/qos.c > and include/linux/pm_qos.h > . rename of API parameters and internal fields names > . Move around the PM QoS misc devices management code for better readability > . re-organize the internal data structs > . generalize and export the constraints management core code > > 2. Implementation of the per-device PM QoS constraints: > . create drivers/base/power/qos.c for the implementation > . create a device PM QoS API, which calls the PM QoS constraints management > core code > . the per-device latency constraints data strctures are stored in the device > dev_pm_info struct > . the device PM code calls the init and destroy of the per-device constraints > data struct in order to support the dynamic insertion and removal of the > devices in the system. > . to minimize the data usage by the per-device constraints, the data struct > is only allocated at the first call to dev_pm_qos_add_request. The data > is later free'd when the device is removed from the system > . per-device notification callbacks can be registered and called upon a > change to the aggregated constraint value > > 3. add a global notification mechanism for the device constraints > . add a global notification chain that gets called upon changes to the > aggregated constraint value for any device. > . the notification callbacks are passing the full constraint request data > in order for the callees to have access to it. The current use is for the > platform low-level code to access the target device of the constraint > > 4. Implement the OMAP low level constraints management code > . create a PM layer plugin for per-device constraints, compiled under > CONFIG_OMAP_PM_CONSTRAINTS=y > . implement the devices wake-up latency constraints using the global > device PM QoS notification handler which applies the constraints to the > underlying layer > . implement the low level code which controls the power domains next power > states, through the hwmod and pwrdm layers > . add (preliminary) power domains wake-up latency figures for OMAP3&4 > . cpuidle is a CPU centric framework so 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 devices > PM QoS framework, via the devices wake-up latency constraints. > . convert the OMAP I2C driver to the PM QoS API for MPU latency constraints > > > Questions: > 1. the user space API is still under discussions on linux-omap and linux-pm MLs, > cf. [1]. The idea is to add a user-space API for the devices constratins > PM QoS, using a sysfs entry per device > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=131232344503327&w=2 > > ToDo: > 1. write Documentation for the new PM QoS class, once the RFC is agreed on > 2. validate the constraints framework on OMAP4 HW (done on OMAP3) > 3. Need testing on platforms other than OMAP > 4. refine the power domains wake-up latency and the cpuidle figures > 5. re-visit the OMAP power domains states initialization procedure. Currently > the power states that have been changed from the constraints API which were > applied before the initialization of the power domains are lost > > > Based on the master branch of the linux-omap git tree (3.0.0-rc7). Compile > tested using OMAP and x86 generic defconfigs. > > Lightly tested on OMAP3 Beagleboard (ES2.x). > Need testing on platforms other than OMAP, because of the impact on the > device insertion/removal in device_pm_add/remove The patchset looks really good to me, I don't think I have any major complaints about this version. The only thing I'd like to ask at the moment is whether or not the compilation of drivers/base/power/qos.c should depend on CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. Do you think it will be used by system suspend code on any platforms? Also, I'd like to take the final patchset for 3.2, but I don't feel confident enough about the OMAP patches. If you want me to take them too, please make sure they are ACKed by the OMAP maintainers. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
