On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 02:57:09PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 10 February 2017 at 12:51, Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Vinod,
> >
> > On 2017-02-10 05:50, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:22:51PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> >>
> >>> +static int pl330_set_slave(struct dma_chan *chan, struct device *slave)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct dma_pl330_chan *pch = to_pchan(chan);
> >>> + struct pl330_dmac *pl330 = pch->dmac;
> >>> + int i;
> >>> +
> >>> + mutex_lock(&pl330->rpm_lock);
> >>> +
> >>> + for (i = 0; i < pl330->num_peripherals; i++) {
> >>> + if (pl330->peripherals[i].chan.slave == slave &&
> >>> + pl330->peripherals[i].slave_link) {
> >>> + pch->slave_link =
> >>> pl330->peripherals[i].slave_link;
> >>> + goto done;
> >>> + }
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + pch->slave_link = device_link_add(slave, pl330->ddma.dev,
> >>> + DL_FLAG_PM_RUNTIME |
> >>> DL_FLAG_RPM_ACTIVE);
> >>
> >> So you are going to add the link on channel allocation and tear down on
> >> the
> >> freeup.
> >
> >
> > Right. Channel allocation is typically done once per driver operation and it
> > won't hurt system performance.
> >
> >> I am not sure I really like the idea here.
> >
> >
> > Could you point what's wrong with it?
> >
> >> First, these thing shouldn't be handled in the drivers. These things
> >> should
> >> be set in core and each driver setting the links doesn't sound great to
> >> me.
> >
> >
> > Which core? And what's wrong with the device links? They have been
> > introduced to
> > model relations between devices that are behind the usual parent/child/bus
> > topology.
>
> I think Vinod mean the dmaengine core. Which also would make perfect
> sense to me as it would benefit all dma drivers.
Right.
> The only related PM thing, that shall be the decision of the driver,
> is whether it wants to enable runtime PM or not, during ->probe().
We can do pm_runtime_enabled() to check and that and do when enabled..
> >> Second, should the link be always there and we only mange the state? Here
> >> it
> >> seems that we have link being created and destroyed, so why not mark it
> >> ACTIVE and DORMANT instead...
> >
> >
> > Link state is managed by device core and should not be touched by the
> > drivers.
> > It is related to both provider and consumer drivers states (probed/not
> > probed/etc).
> >
> > Second we would need to create those links first. The question is where to
> > create them then.
>
> Just to fill in, to me this is really also the key question.
>
> If we could set up the device link already at device initialization,
> it should also be possible to avoid getting -EPROBE_DEFER for dma
> client drivers when requesting their dma channels.
Well if we defer then driver will regiser with dmaengine after it is
probed, so a client will either get a channel or not. IOW we won't get
-EPROBE_DEFER.
>
> >
> >> Lastly, looking at th description of the issue here, am perceiving (maybe
> >> my
> >> understanding is not quite right here) that you have an IP block in SoC
> >> which has multiple things and share common stuff and doing right PM is a
> >> challenge for you, right?
> >
> >
> > Nope. Doing right PM in my SoC is not that complex and I would say it is
> > rather
> > typical for any embedded stuff. It works fine (in terms of the power
> > consumption reduction) when all drivers simply properly manage their runtime
> > PM state, thus if device is not in use, the state is set to suspended and
> > finally, the power domain gets turned off.
> >
> > I've used device links for PM only because the current DMA engine API is
> > simply insufficient to implement it in the other way.
> >
> > I want to let a power domain, which contains a few devices, among those a
> > PL330
> > device, to get turned off when there is no activity. Handling power domain
> > power
> > on / off requires non-atomic context, what is typical for runtime pm calls.
> > For
> > that I need to have non-irq-safe runtime pm implemented for all devices that
> > belongs to that domains.
>
> Again, allow me to fill in. This issue exists for all ARM SoC which
> has a dma controller residing in a PM domain. I think that is quite
> many.
>
> Currently the only solution I have seen for this problem, but which I
> really dislike. That is, each dma client driver requests/releases
> their dma channel from their respective ->runtime_suspend|resume()
> callbacks - then the dma driver can use the dma request/release hooks,
> to do pm_runtime_get|put() which then becomes non-irq-safe.
Yeah that is not the best way to do. But looking at it current one doesnt
seem best fit either.
So on seeing the device_link_add() I was thinking that this is some SoC
dependent problem being solved whereas the problem statmement is non-atomic
channel prepare.
As I said earlier, if we want to solve that problem a better idea is to
actually split the prepare as we discussed in [1]
This way we can get a non atomic descriptor allocate/prepare and release.
Yes we need to redesign the APIs to solve this, but if you guys are up for
it, I think we can do it and avoid any further round abouts :)
> > The problem with PL330 driver is that it use irq-safe runtime pm, which like
> > it
> > was stated in the patch description doesn't bring much benefits. To switch
> > to
> > standard (non-irq-safe) runtime pm, the pm_runtime calls have to be done
> > from
> > a context which permits sleeping. The problem with DMA engine driver API is
> > that
> > most of its callbacks have to be IRQ-safe and frankly only
> > device_{alloc,release}_chan_resources() what more or less maps to
> > dma_request_chan()/dma_release_channel() and friends. There are DMA engine
> > drivers which do runtime PM calls there (tegra20-apb-dma, sirf-dma, cppi41,
> > rcar-dmac), but this is not really efficient. DMA engine clients usually
> > allocate
> > dma channel during their probe() and keep them for the whole driver life. In
> > turn
> > this very similar to calling pm_runtime_get() in the DMA engine driver
> > probe().
> > The result of both approaches is that DMA engine device keeps its power
> > domain
> > enabled almost all the time. This problem is also mentioned in the DMA
> > engine
> > TODO list, you have pointed me yesterday.
> >
> > To avoid such situation that DMA engine driver blocks turning off the power
> > domain and avoid changing DMA engine client API I came up with the device
> > links
> > pm based approach. I don't want to duplicate the description here, the
> > details
> > were in the patch description, however if you have any particular question
> > about
> > the details, let me know and I will try to clarify it more.
>
> So besides solving the irq-safe issue for dma driver, using the
> device-links has additionally two advantages. I already mentioned the
> -EPROBE_DEFER issue above.
>
> The second thing, is the runtime/system PM relations we get for free
> by using the links. In other words, the dma driver/core don't need to
> care about dealing with pm_runtime_get|put() as that would be managed
> by the dma client driver.
Yeah sorry took me a while to figure that out :), If we do a different API
then dmaengine core can call pm_runtime_get|put() from non-atomic context.
[1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/dmaengine/msg11570.html
--
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
