On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Rafael, Jon,
>
> On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>>>> The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single
>>>>>>> PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several
>>>>>>> use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary for
>>>>>>> a PM domain consumer to control more than one PM domain where the PM
>>>>>>> domains:
>>>>>>> i). Do not conform to a parent-child relationship so are not nested
>>>>>>> ii). May not be powered on and off at the same time so need independent
>>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The solution proposed in this RFC is to allow consumers to explictly
>>>>>>> control PM domains, by getting a handle to a PM domain and explicitly
>>>>>>> making calls to power on and off the PM domain. Note that referencing
>>>>>>> counting is used to ensure that a PM domain shared between consumers
>>>>>>> is not powered off incorrectly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Tegra124/210 XUSB subsystem (that consists of both host and device
>>>>>>> controllers) is an example of a consumer that needs to control more than
>>>>>>> one PM domain because the logic is partitioned across 3 PM domains which
>>>>>>> are:
>>>>>>> - XUSBA: Superspeed logic (for USB 3.0)
>>>>>>> - XUSBB: Device controller
>>>>>>> - XUSBC: Host controller
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These power domains are not nested and can be powered-up and down
>>>>>>> independently of one another. In practice different scenarios require
>>>>>>> different combinations of the power domains, for example:
>>>>>>> - Superspeed host: XUSBA and XUSBC
>>>>>>> - Superspeed device: XUSBA and XUSBB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although it could be possible to logically nest both the XUSBB and XUSBC
>>>>>>> domains under the XUSBA, superspeed may not always be used/required and
>>>>>>> so this would keep it on unnecessarily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that Tegra uses device-tree for describing the hardware, it would
>>>>>>> be ideal that the device-tree 'power-domains' property for generic PM
>>>>>>> domains could be extended to allow more than one PM domain to be
>>>>>>> specified. For example, define the following the Tegra210 xHCI device ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> usb@70090000 {
>>>>>>> compatible = "nvidia,tegra210-xusb";
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> power-domains = <&pd_xusbhost>, <&pd_xusbss>;
>>>>>>> power-domain-names = "host", "superspeed";
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This RFC extends the generic PM domain framework to allow a device to
>>>>>>> define more than one PM domain in the device-tree 'power-domains'
>>>>>>> property. If there is more than one then the assumption is that these
>>>>>>> PM domains will be controlled explicitly by the consumer and the device
>>>>>>> will not be automatically bound to any PM domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any more comments/inputs on this? I can address Rajendra's feedback, but
>>>>>> before I did I wanted to see if this is along the right lines or not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I discussed this with Rafael at the OSPM summit in Pisa a couple of
>>>>> weeks ago. Apologize for the delay in providing additional feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, whether the problem is really rare, perhaps adding a new
>>>>> API/framework can't be justified - then it may be better to add some
>>>>> kind of aggregation layer on top of the current PM domain
>>>>> infrastructure (something along the first attempt you made for genpd).
>>>>> That was kind of Rafael's thoughts (Rafael, please correct me if I am
>>>>> wrong).
>>>>
>>>> We were talking about the original idea behind the pm_domain pointer
>>>> concept, which was about adding a set of PM operations above the bus
>>>> type/class layer, which could be used for intercepting bus-type PM
>>>> operations and providing some common handling above them. This is
>>>> still relevant IMO.
>>>>
>>>> The basic observation here is that the PM core takes only one set of
>>>> PM operation per device into account and therefore, in every stage of
>>>> system suspend, for example, the callback invoked by it has to take
>>>> care of all actions that need to be carried out for the given device,
>>>> possibly by invoking callbacks from other code layers. That
>>>> limitation cannot be removed easily, because it is built into the PM
>>>> core design quite fundamentally.
>>>>
>>>> However, this series seems to be about controlling power resources
>>>> represented by power domain objects rather than about PM operations.
>>>> In ACPI there is a power resource concept which seems to be quite
>>>> similar to this, so it is not entirely new. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Of course, question is whether or not to extend genpd this way and I'm
>>>> not really sure. I actually probably wouldn't do that, because
>>>> poweron/poweroff operations used by genpd can be implemeted in terms
>>>> of lower-level power resource control and I don't see the reason for
>>>> mixing the two in one framework.
>>>
>>> That seems fine to me. However, it seems that genpd itself should also
>>> be a client of this 'low-level power resource control' so that
>>> power-domains are registered once and can be used by either method.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> So unless I am misunderstanding you here, it seems that what we need to do
>>> is split the current genpd framework into a couple layers:
>>>
>>> 1. Low-level power resource control which has:
>>> - Power resource registration (ie. pm_genpd_init/remove())
>>> - Power resource provider registration (ie. of_genpd_add_xxx())
>>> - Power resource control (on/off etc)
>>
>> And reference counting.
>>
>>> - Power resource lookup (what this series is adding)
>>>
>>> 2. Generic power-domain infrastructure which is a client of the
>>> low-level power resource control that can automatically bind a device to
>>> a singular power resource entity (ie. power-domain).
>>
>> Something like that, but I would not require an additional complex framework
>> to be present below genpd. I would make it *possible* for genpd to use that
>> framework if available, but if something simpler is sufficient, it should be
>> fine to use that instead.
>>
>> That is, I would allow genpd to use either a list of power resources or the on/off
>> callbacks provided by itself to cover different use cases. That should be
>> flexible enough.
>>
>>> Is this along the right lines?
>>
>> It is, at least for the very narrow definition of "right" as being done along
>> the lines I would do that. :-)
>
> Let me first give some more background to how it looks like today.
>
> We have the following device callbacks being used by genpd:
>
> struct gpd_dev_ops {
> int (*start)(struct device *dev);
> int (*stop)(struct device *dev);
> bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev);
> };
>
> The ->stop|start() callback is invoked from genpd's
> ->runtime_suspend|resume() callbacks and may be assigned by a genpd
> client before it registers a genpd though pm_genpd_init(). Typically
> these callbacks can control any "power resources" that the genpd
> client finds suitable.
>
> To allow clients to instantiate "power resources" per device, we have
> the following callbacks, part of the struct generic_pm_domain.
>
> int (*attach_dev)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, struct device *dev);
> void (*detach_dev)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, struct device *dev);
>
> These callbacks are invoked when the device gets attached/detached
> from its PM domain (genpd).
>
> Moreover, the struct dev_pm_get_subsys_data is being used from within
> genpd (via struct pm_domain_data *domain_data), as it allows genpd and
> its client, to allocate and associate device specific data, which may
> be needed to store information about the "power resources".
>
> Currently Renesas SoCs are a good example of how to deploy this, as it
> implements its clock PM domain on top of this. In this regards I
> assume that we could consider the pm_clk_*() APIs as in control of the
> "power resources".
>
> So my conclusion is; unless I am totally misunderstanding the ideas
> here; I think we already have the infrastructure in place and we also
> have some good references of how to use it.
So how do you represent more than one power-domain in device-tree for a
device which requires more than one? That is the fundamental problem IMO.
>From what Geert has described (and what I understand), it appears that
for the Renesas SoCs, the current infrastructure works because a device
has either a clock-domain or a power-domain and clock-domain. For
devices with both a power-domain and clock-domain, the clock-domain can
be handled via the clock callbacks (pm_clk_suspend/resume I assume).
However, this does not scale or work for devices that truly need more
than one power-domain which XUSB on Tegra does.
> What is missing, is how a call to pm_runtime_get_sync() by a driver,
> can inform the ->start() callback about what exact power resource(s)
> it shall turn on, because it may not always be all of them. Similar
> problem exists for pm_runtime_put().
Yes that is missing too, but I still don't see how you bind a device to
more than one power-domain :-(
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
