linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPDyKFoJ58pwGz2U90ob8a8cY=hEbE-wLBHZ0BBzqPoLW_wgGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 21:34:44 +0200
From:   Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of
 PM domains

On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> 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@...90000 {
>>               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).

However, we currently know about at least two different SoCs that need
this. Perhaps we can extend the below list to justify adding a new
framework/APIs. Something along the lines what you propose in $subject
patchset.

1) Nvidia; to solve the USB super-speed host/device problem.
2) QCOM, which has pointed to several cases where the PM topology is
laid out like devices having two PM domains..
3?) I don't fully remember - but I think Geert also pointed to some
examples where a device could reside in a clock domain but also in
power domain for a Renesas SoC!?
4) ?

Moreover, perhaps this could also be useful for SoCs using ACPI? If
so, we shouldn't tie this immediately to genpd, but in the layer above
genpd/ACPI PM domain. Something like dev_pm_domain_get(), which would
be implemented similar as the dev_pm_domain_attach() (which calls both
the ACPI PM domain and genpd to find a match).

Kind regards
Uffe