On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 03:38:14PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 30/11/15 22:42, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, November 30, 2015 04:42:46 PM Jon Hunter wrote: > >> Currently, if PM is disabled in the kernel then so is > >> PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS. Although this makes sense, I can see a scenario > >> where having minimal genpd support could be advantageous. > >> > >> I am looking at enabling genpd for Tegra and ideally we would populate > >> the power domains when the platform device is probed for the power > >> management controller (PMC) as this device contains the registers for > >> enabling the power domains. > >> > >> This works fine for the case where PM is enabled, but I am concerned > >> about the case where we don't have PM enabled in the kernel. In this > >> case, because domains are not populated early during the boot process, I > >> am concerned that there is a chance for a device dependent on a power > >> domain to be probed before the PMC device has been probed and had chance > >> to turn on any power domains. > > > > So make the !PM case invalid for that platform. > > Thierry, I know that we have not reviewed GPD for tegra recently, but > what are your thoughts on the above in principle? At least for Tegra 64-bit? > > > Seriously, either PM is mandatory, or it isn't. If it is mandatory, make it so > > instead of pretending that you can live without it. > > I understand your point and I do agree, however, this means that for any > device with power-domains that PM is already mandatory (unless they > don't use genpd at all). > > I see some platforms getting around this by enabling all the > power-domains early during the platform code and if PM is not enabled > then they won't be turned off and so all is ok (d438462c20a3 "ARM: imx6: > gpc: always enable PU domain if CONFIG_PM is not set"). However, this > assumes that power-domains will never fail to power on and this seems a > little fragile to me. > > One thought I had was to make the PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF code independent > of PM (ie. moved to domain_of.c) and with a little tweaking of the > genpd_dev_pm_attach() function it could be made to work whether PM is > enable or not. In other words, if PM is not enabled, then > genpd_dev_pm_attach() would only return success if: > 1. The device is not dependent on a power domain or > 2. The device is dependent on a power domain and it is present and > already powered on. > > Alternatively, may be genpd_dev_pm_attach() should always return > -EPROBE_DEFER (to prevent probing a device) if !PM and the device has a > "power-domains" node defined. That all sounds very complicated for little gain. Disabling PM doesn't make much sense these days, so I'd personally be fine to unconditonally enable PM on Tegra. I'm not sure what the correct way would be. Since the PM symbol is user-visible, selecting it doesn't sound like a very good solution, though a quick grep shows that some architectures do this. Rafael, do you know what the canonical way is to make !PM invalid for a platform? Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
