linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v1 8/8] arm64: dtsi: sdm845: Add cpu power domain support

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 18:35:00 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     "Raju P.L.S.S.S.N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     andy.gross@...aro.org, david.brown@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, khilman@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, evgreen@...omium.org,
        dianders@...omium.org, mka@...omium.org, ilina@...eaurora.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 8/8] arm64: dtsi: sdm845: Add cpu power domain
 support

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 02:50:55AM +0530, Raju P.L.S.S.S.N wrote:
> Add cpu power domain support
> 
> Signed-off-by: Raju P.L.S.S.S.N <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi | 13 +++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> index d3662a8..aadaa20 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
> @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_0: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -111,6 +112,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x100>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_100>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_100: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -123,6 +125,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x200>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_200>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_200: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -135,6 +138,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x300>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_300>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_300: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -147,6 +151,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x400>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_400>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_400: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -159,6 +164,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x500>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_500>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_500: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -171,6 +177,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x600>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_600>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_600: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -183,6 +190,7 @@
>  			reg = <0x0 0x700>;
>  			enable-method = "psci";
>  			next-level-cache = <&L2_700>;
> +			power-domains = <&cpu_pd>;
>  			L2_700: l2-cache {
>  				compatible = "cache";
>  				next-level-cache = <&L3_0>;
> @@ -1170,6 +1178,11 @@
>  					  <WAKE_TCS    3>,
>  					  <CONTROL_TCS 1>;
>  
> +			cpu_pd: power-domain-controller {
> +				compatible = "qcom,cpu-pm-domain";
> +				#power-domain-cells = <0>;
> +			};
> +

After all the discussions, I see this power domain actually influence
not just CPUs but other devices. So this should be top most power domain
in the system with lots of devices or their power domains pointing to it.
Why is this just pointing to cpus ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep