[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqooMww0B6vGL56BnG-L=13C3oWeDFx4v1cO9=W9QPwVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 12:21:47 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Raju P . L . S . S . S . N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@...aro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Souvik Chakravarty <souvik.chakravarty@....com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/18] drivers: firmware: psci: Support CPU hotplug for
the hierarchical model
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 17:31, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:22:57PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > When the hierarchical CPU topology is used and when a CPU has been put
> > offline (hotplug), that same CPU prevents its PM domain and thus also
> > potential master PM domains, from being powered off. This is because genpd
> > observes the CPU's attached device as being active from a runtime PM point
> > of view.
> >
> > To deal with this, let's decrease the runtime PM usage count by calling
> > pm_runtime_put_sync_suspend() of the attached struct device when putting
> > the CPU offline. Consequentially, we must then increase the runtime PM
> > usage count, while putting the CPU online again.
> >
>
> Why is this firmware/driver specific ? Why can't this be dealt in core
> pm-domain ? I am concerned that if any other architectures or firmware
> method decides to use this feature, this need to be duplicated there.
What is the core pm-domain? Do you refer to the generic PM domain (genpd), no?
In such case, this is not the job of genpd, but rather the opposite
(to *monitor* the reference count).
>
> The way I see this is pure reference counting and is hardware/firmware/
> driver agnostic and can be made generic.
As stated in the another reply, I would rather start with having more
things driver specific rather than generic. Later on we can always
consider to move/split things, when there are more users.
In this particular case, the runtime PM reference counting is done on
the struct device*, that genpd returned via
dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name(). And because
dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name() is called from PSCI code, I decided to
keep this struct device* internal to PSCI.
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists