19.08.2021 16:07, Ulf Hansson пишет: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 18.08.2021 13:08, Ulf Hansson пишет: >>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 11:50, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18-08-21, 11:41, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 11:14, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> What we need here is just configure. So something like this then: >>>>>> >>>>>> - genpd->get_performance_state() >>>>>> -> dev_pm_opp_get_current_opp() //New API >>>>>> -> dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(dev, current_opp->pstate); >>>>>> >>>>>> This can be done just once from probe() then. >>>>> >>>>> How would dev_pm_opp_get_current_opp() work? Do you have a suggestion? >>>> >>>> The opp core already has a way of finding current OPP, that's what >>>> Dmitry is trying to use here. It finds it using clk_get_rate(), if >>>> that is zero, it picks the lowest freq possible. >>>> >>>>> I am sure I understand the problem. When a device is getting probed, >>>>> it needs to consume power, how else can the corresponding driver >>>>> successfully probe it? >>>> >>>> Dmitry can answer that better, but a device doesn't necessarily need >>>> to consume energy in probe. It can consume bus clock, like APB we >>>> have, but the more energy consuming stuff can be left disabled until >>>> the time a user comes up. Probe will just end up registering the >>>> driver and initializing it. >>> >>> That's perfectly fine, as then it's likely that it won't vote for an >>> OPP, but can postpone that as well. >>> >>> Perhaps the problem is rather that the HW may already carry a non-zero >>> vote made from a bootloader. If the consumer driver tries to clear >>> that vote (calling dev_pm_opp_set_rate(dev, 0), for example), it would >>> still not lead to any updates of the performance state in genpd, >>> because genpd internally has initialized the performance-state to >>> zero. >> >> We don't need to discover internal SoC devices because we use >> device-tree on ARM. For most devices power isn't required at a probe >> time because probe function doesn't touch h/w at all, thus devices are >> left in suspended state after probe. >> >> We have three components comprising PM on Tegra: >> >> 1. Power gate >> 2. Clock state >> 3. Voltage state >> >> GENPD on/off represents the 'power gate'. >> >> Clock and reset are controlled by device drivers using clk and rst APIs. >> >> Voltage state is represented by GENPD's performance level. >> >> GENPD core assumes that at a first rpm-resume of a consumer device, its >> genpd_performance=0. Not true for Tegra because h/w of the device is >> preconfigured to a non-zero perf level initially, h/w may not support >> zero level at all. > > I think you may be misunderstanding genpd's behaviour around this, but > let me elaborate. > > In genpd_runtime_resume(), we try to restore the performance state for > the device that genpd_runtime_suspend() *may* have dropped earlier. > That means, if genpd_runtime_resume() is called prior > genpd_runtime_suspend() for the first time, it means that > genpd_runtime_resume() will *not* restore a performance state, but > instead just leave the performance state as is for the device (see > genpd_restore_performance_state()). > > In other words, a consumer driver may use the following sequence to > set an initial performance state for the device during ->probe(): > > ... > rate = clk_get_rate() > dev_pm_opp_set_rate(rate) > > pm_runtime_enable() > pm_runtime_resume_and_get() > ... > > Note that, it's the consumer driver's responsibility to manage device > specific resources, in its ->runtime_suspend|resume() callbacks. > Typically that means dealing with clock gating/ungating, for example. > > In the other scenario where a consumer driver prefers to *not* call > pm_runtime_resume_and_get() in its ->probe(), because it doesn't need > to power on the device to complete probing, then we don't want to vote > for an OPP at all - and we also want the performance state for the > device in genpd to be set to zero. Correct? Yes > Is this the main problem you are trying to solve, because I think this > doesn't work out of the box as of today? The main problem is that the restored performance state is zero for the first genpd_runtime_resume(), while it's not zero from the h/w perspective. > There is another concern though, but perhaps it's not a problem after > all. Viresh told us that dev_pm_opp_set_rate() may turn on resources > like clock/regulators. That could certainly be problematic, in > particular if the device and its genpd have OPP tables associated with > it and the consumer driver wants to follow the above sequence in > probe. dev_pm_opp_set_rate() won't enable clocks and regulators, but it may change the clock rate and voltage. This is also platform/driver specific because it's up to OPP user how to configure OPP table. On Tegra we only assign clock to OPP table, regulators are unused. > Viresh, can you please chime in here and elaborate on some of the > magic happening behind dev_pm_opp_set_rate() API - is there a problem > here or not? > >> >> GENPD core assumes that consumer devices can work at any performance >> level. Not true for Tegra because voltage needs to be set in accordance >> to the clock rate before clock is enabled, otherwise h/w won't work >> properly, perhaps clock may be unstable or h/w won't be latching. > > Correct. Genpd relies on the callers to use the OPP framework if there > are constraints like you describe above. > > That said, it's not forbidden for a consumer driver to call > dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state() directly, but then it better > knows exactly what it's doing. > >> >> Performance level should be set to 0 while device is suspended. > > Do you mean system suspend or runtime suspend? Or both? Runtime suspend. >> Performance level needs to be bumped on rpm-resume of a device in >> accordance to h/w state before hardware is enabled. > > Assuming there was a performance state set for the device when > genpd_runtime_suspend() was called, genpd_runtime_resume() will > restore that state according to the sequence you described. What do you think about adding API that will allow drivers to explicitly set the restored performance state of a power domain? Another option could be to change the GENPD core, making it to set the rpm_pstate when dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(dev) is invoked and device is rpm-suspended, instead of calling the genpd->set_performance_state callback. Then drivers will be able to sync the perf state at a probe time. What do you think? diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c index a934c679e6ce..cc15ab9eacc9 100644 --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ static void genpd_restore_performance_state(struct device *dev, int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device *dev, unsigned int state) { struct generic_pm_domain *genpd; - int ret; + int ret = 0; genpd = dev_to_genpd_safe(dev); if (!genpd) @@ -446,7 +446,10 @@ int dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(struct device *dev, unsigned int state) return -EINVAL; genpd_lock(genpd); - ret = genpd_set_performance_state(dev, state); + if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) + dev_gpd_data(dev)->rpm_pstate = state; + else + ret = genpd_set_performance_state(dev, state); genpd_unlock(genpd); return ret;