On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 10:51:45AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 at 07:38, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > 在 2024/11/3 20:02, Manivannan Sadhasivam 写道:
> > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 05:20:08PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
> > >> Hi Ulf,
> > >>
> > >> 在 2024/10/18 17:07, Ulf Hansson 写道:
> > >>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 at 03:21, Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Ulf
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 在 2024/10/9 21:15, Ulf Hansson 写道:
> > >>>>> [...]
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> +static int ufs_rockchip_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>> + struct ufs_hba *hba = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > >>>>>> + struct ufs_rockchip_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
> > >>>>>> + struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = pd_to_genpd(dev->pm_domain);
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> pd_to_genpd() isn't safe to use like this. It's solely to be used by
> > >>>>> genpd provider drivers.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + clk_disable_unprepare(host->ref_out_clk);
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + /*
> > >>>>>> + * Shouldn't power down if rpm_lvl is less than level 5.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Can you elaborate on why we must not power-off the power-domain when
> > >>>>> level is less than 5?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because ufshcd driver assume the controller is active and the link is on
> > >>>> if level is less than 5. So the default resume policy will not try to
> > >>>> recover the registers until the first error happened. Otherwise if the
> > >>>> level is >=5, it assumes the controller is off and the link is down,
> > >>>> then it will restore the registers and link.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And the level is changeable via sysfs.
> > >>>
> > >>> Okay, thanks for clarifying.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> What happens if we power-off anyway when the level is less than 5?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> + * This flag will be passed down to platform power-domain driver
> > >>>>>> + * which has the final decision.
> > >>>>>> + */
> > >>>>>> + if (hba->rpm_lvl < UFS_PM_LVL_5)
> > >>>>>> + genpd->flags |= GENPD_FLAG_RPM_ALWAYS_ON;
> > >>>>>> + else
> > >>>>>> + genpd->flags &= ~GENPD_FLAG_RPM_ALWAYS_ON;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The genpd->flags is not supposed to be changed like this - and
> > >>>>> especially not from a genpd consumer driver.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I am trying to understand a bit more of the use case here. Let's see
> > >>>>> if that helps me to potentially suggest an alternative approach.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I was not familiar with the genpd part, so I haven't come up with
> > >>>> another solution. It would be great if you can guide me to the right
> > >>>> way.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have been playing with the existing infrastructure we have at hand
> > >>> to support this, but I need a few more days to be able to propose
> > >>> something for you.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Much appreciate.
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + return ufshcd_runtime_suspend(dev);
> > >>>>>> +}
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> +static int ufs_rockchip_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>> + struct ufs_hba *hba = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > >>>>>> + struct ufs_rockchip_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
> > >>>>>> + int err;
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + err = clk_prepare_enable(host->ref_out_clk);
> > >>>>>> + if (err) {
> > >>>>>> + dev_err(hba->dev, "failed to enable ref out clock %d\n", err);
> > >>>>>> + return err;
> > >>>>>> + }
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + reset_control_assert(host->rst);
> > >>>>>> + usleep_range(1, 2);
> > >>>>>> + reset_control_deassert(host->rst);
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + return ufshcd_runtime_resume(dev);
> > >>>>>> +}
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> +static int ufs_rockchip_system_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>> + struct ufs_hba *hba = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > >>>>>> + struct ufs_rockchip_host *host = ufshcd_get_variant(hba);
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> + /* Pass down desired spm_lvl to Firmware */
> > >>>>>> + arm_smccc_smc(ROCKCHIP_SIP_SUSPEND_MODE, ROCKCHIP_SLEEP_PD_CONFIG,
> > >>>>>> + host->pd_id, hba->spm_lvl < 5 ? 1 : 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, NULL);
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Can you please elaborate on what goes on here? Is this turning off the
> > >>>>> power-domain that the dev is attached to - or what is actually
> > >>>>> happening?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This smc call is trying to ask firmware not to turn off the power-domian
> > >>>> that the UFS is attached to and also not to turn off the power of UFS
> > >>>> conntroller.
> > >>>
> > >>> Okay, thanks for clarifying!
> > >>>
> > >>> A follow up question, don't you need to make a corresponding smc call
> > >>> to inform the FW that it's okay to turn off the power-domain at some
> > >>> point?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Yes. Each time entering sleep, we teach FW if it need to turn off or keep
> > >> power-domain, for instance "hba->spm_lvl < 5 ? 1 : 0" , 0 means
> > >> off and 1 means on.
> > >>
> > >
> > > We had a requirement to notify the genpd provider from consumer to not turn off
> > > the power domain during system suspend. So Ulf came up with an API for
> > > consumers, device_set_wakeup_path() setting the 'dev->power.wakeup_path' which
> > > will be honored by the genpd core. Will that work for you?
> >
> > Yes, that works. And we may need a symmetrical call, for instance,
> > device_clr_wakeup_path() to allow genpd provider to turn off the power
> > domain as well.
>
> The PM core clears the flag in device_prepare(). The flag is typically
> supposed to be set from a ->suspend() callback, so there should be no
> need for an additional function that clears the flag, I think.
>
Yeah, that's my understanding as well though I didn't look into PM core deeply.
- Mani
--
மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
