| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5D7CC99D.1030106@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:06:05 -0400
From: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, agross@...nel.org,
amit.kucheria@...durent.com, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] thermal: Add generic power domain warming device
driver.
On 09/13/2019 03:54 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 22:18, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/12/2019 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ulf,
>>
>> Thanks for the review.
>>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 at 19:14, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Resources modeled as power domains in linux kenrel
>>>> can be used to warm the SoC(eg. mx power domain on sdm845).
>>>> To support this feature, introduce a generic power domain
>>>> warming device driver that can be plugged into the thermal framework
>>>> (The thermal framework itself requires further modifiction to
>>>> support a warming device in place of a cooling device.
>>>> Those extensions are not introduced in this patch series).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> v1->v2:
>>>> - Make power domain based warming device driver a generic
>>>> driver in the thermal framework. v1 implemented this as a
>>>> Qualcomm specific driver.
>>>> - Rename certain variables as per review suggestions on the
>>>> mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/thermal/Kconfig | 11 +++
>>>> drivers/thermal/Makefile | 2 +
>>>> drivers/thermal/pwr_domain_warming.c | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 187 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/thermal/pwr_domain_warming.c
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/Kconfig b/drivers/thermal/Kconfig
>>>> index 9966364..eeb6018 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -187,6 +187,17 @@ config DEVFREQ_THERMAL
>>>>
>>>> If you want this support, you should say Y here.
>>>>
>>>> +config PWR_DOMAIN_WARMING_THERMAL
>>>> + bool "Power Domain based warming device"
>>>> + depends on PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS
>>>> + depends on PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
>>>
>>> PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF can't be set unless PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS is set too.
>>>
>>> So I assume it's sufficient to depend on PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF?
>>
>> Yes, you are right. I will change it.
>>>
>>>> + help
>>>> + This implements the generic power domain based warming
>>>> + mechanism through increasing the performance state of
>>>> + a power domain.
>>>> +
>>>> + If you want this support, you should say Y here.
>>>> +
>>>> config THERMAL_EMULATION
>>>> bool "Thermal emulation mode support"
>>>> help
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/Makefile b/drivers/thermal/Makefile
>>>> index 74a37c7..382c64a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/thermal/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/Makefile
>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,8 @@ thermal_sys-$(CONFIG_CLOCK_THERMAL) += clock_cooling.o
>>>> # devfreq cooling
>>>> thermal_sys-$(CONFIG_DEVFREQ_THERMAL) += devfreq_cooling.o
>>>>
>>>> +thermal_sys-$(CONFIG_PWR_DOMAIN_WARMING_THERMAL) += pwr_domain_warming.o
>>>> +
>>>> # platform thermal drivers
>>>> obj-y += broadcom/
>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_THERMAL_MMIO) += thermal_mmio.o
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/pwr_domain_warming.c b/drivers/thermal/pwr_domain_warming.c
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..3dd792b
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/pwr_domain_warming.c
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2019, Linaro Ltd
>>>> + */
>>>> +#include <linux/err.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>>>> +#include <linux/thermal.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +struct pd_warming_device {
>>>> + struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev;
>>>> + struct device *dev;
>>>> + int max_state;
>>>> + int cur_state;
>>>> + bool runtime_resumed;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static const struct of_device_id pd_wdev_match_table[] = {
>>>> + { .compatible = "thermal-power-domain-wdev", .data = NULL },
>>>> + { }
>>>> +};
>>>> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, pd_wdev_match_table);
>>>> +
>>>> +static int pd_wdev_get_max_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
>>>> + unsigned long *state)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct pd_warming_device *pd_wdev = cdev->devdata;
>>>> +
>>>> + *state = pd_wdev->max_state;
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int pd_wdev_get_cur_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
>>>> + unsigned long *state)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct pd_warming_device *pd_wdev = cdev->devdata;
>>>> +
>>>> + *state = dev_pm_genpd_get_performance_state(pd_wdev->dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int pd_wdev_set_cur_state(struct thermal_cooling_device *cdev,
>>>> + unsigned long state)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct pd_warming_device *pd_wdev = cdev->devdata;
>>>> + struct device *dev = pd_wdev->dev;
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state(dev, state);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (state && !pd_wdev->runtime_resumed) {
>>>> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(dev);
>>>> + pd_wdev->runtime_resumed = true;
>>>> + } else if (!state && pd_wdev->runtime_resumed) {
>>>> + ret = pm_runtime_put(dev);
>>>> + pd_wdev->runtime_resumed = false;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct thermal_cooling_device_ops pd_warming_device_ops = {
>>>> + .get_max_state = pd_wdev_get_max_state,
>>>> + .get_cur_state = pd_wdev_get_cur_state,
>>>> + .set_cur_state = pd_wdev_set_cur_state,
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static int pd_wdev_create(struct device *dev, const char *name)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct pd_warming_device *pd_wdev;
>>>> + int state_count;
>>>> +
>>>> + pd_wdev = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pd_wdev), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!pd_wdev)
>>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>>> +
>>>> + state_count = dev_pm_genpd_performance_state_count(dev);
>>>> + if (state_count < 0)
>>>> + return state_count;
>>>> +
>>>> + pd_wdev->dev = dev;
>>>> + pd_wdev->max_state = state_count - 1;
>>>> + pd_wdev->runtime_resumed = false;
>>>> +
>>>> + pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + pd_wdev->cdev = thermal_of_cooling_device_register
>>>> + (dev->of_node, name,
>>>> + pd_wdev,
>>>> + &pd_warming_device_ops);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pd_wdev->cdev)) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "unable to register %s cooling device\n", name);
>>>> + pm_runtime_disable(dev);
>>>> +
>>>> + return PTR_ERR(pd_wdev->cdev);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static int pd_wdev_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev, *pd_dev;
>>>> + const char *pd_name;
>>>> + int id, count, ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + count = of_count_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "power-domains",
>>>> + "#power-domain-cells");
>>>
>>> Perhaps this should be converted to genpd OF helper function instead,
>>> that allows the caller to know how many power-domains there are
>>> specified for a device node.
>>
>> I am ok with this if you think that a OF helper to get the number of
>> power domains is a useful helper in the genpd framework. I can add it as
>> part of the next revision. Or do you want me to send it across separate?
>
> Feel free to include in the next version of the series. In case it's needed.
Will do, if needed. (But as per below I am removing multiple PD support
and hence this might not be needed)
>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (count > 1) {
>>>> + for (id = 0; id < count; id++) {
>>>> + ret = of_property_read_string_index
>>>> + (dev->of_node, "power-domain-names",
>>>> + id, &pd_name);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Error reading the power domain name %d\n", ret);
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> It looks a bit awkward that you want to re-use the power-domain-names
>>> as the name for the cooling (warming) device. This isn't really what
>>> we use the "*-names" bindings for in general, I think.
>>>
>>> Anyway, if you want a name corresponding to the actual attached PM
>>> domain, perhaps re-using "->name" from the struct generic_pm_domain is
>>> better. We can add a genpd helper for that, no problem. Of course it
>>> also means that you must call dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id() first, to
>>> attach the device and then get the name of the genpd, but that should
>>> be fine.
>>
>> Ya. I need a name corresponding to the power domain name (or something
>> very close) to identify the actual warming device in the sysfs entries.
>> I can use genpd->name and a helper function to achieve it. I can include
>> it in Patch 1/5 where I add other helper functions.
>
> A separate patch please, but yeah, fold it in into @subject series.
Sure!
>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + pd_dev = dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id(dev, id);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(pd_dev)) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Error attaching power domain %s %ld\n", pd_name, PTR_ERR(pd_dev));
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = pd_wdev_create(pd_dev, pd_name);
>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Error building cooling device %s %d\n", pd_name, ret);
>>>> + dev_pm_domain_detach(pd_dev, false);
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I am wondering about the use case of having multiple PM domains
>>> attached to the cooling (warming) device. Is that really needed?
>>> Perhaps you can elaborate on that a bit?
>> Ya. I though about this as well. I don't have a use case. In my current
>> case it is just one power domain on the SoC. But considering this is now
>> a generic driver, in my opinion this has to be a generic solution. So if
>> you think about this, the device should be able to specify any number of
>> power domains that can behave as a warming device since a SoC can have
>> any number of power domain based warming devices. May be one to warm up
>> the cpus, one for gpus etc.
>
> I get that, but you can always have more than one warming device. Each
> warming device would then be attached to a single PM domain. Or is
> there a problem with that?
>
> In any case, if you don't have use case for multiple PM domains per
> warming device at this point, I would rather keep it simple and start
> to support only the single PM domain case.
Ok. I will remove the support for multiple PM domains for now.
>
>>
>> So another way of implementing this whole thing is to avoid having a
>> special power domain warming device defined in the device tree. Instead,
>> add a few new binding to the power-domain controller/provider entries
>> to specify if a power domain controlled by the provider can act as a
>> warming device or not. And have the initialization code for the power
>> domain controller (of_genpd_add_provider_onecell or any other suitable
>> API) register the specified power domain as a warming device. The DT
>> entries should probably look something like below in the case.
>>
>> rpmhpd: power-controller {
>> compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmhpd";
>> #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> hosts-warming-dev;
>> warming-dev-names = "mx";
>> operating-points-v2 = <&rpmhpd_opp_table>;
>>
>> rpmhpd_opp_table: opp-table {
>> compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>> ....
>>
>> And have the following in of_genpd_add_provider_onecell
>>
>> if (hosts-warming-dev)
>> # loop through the warming-dev-names and register them as power domain
>> warming devices.
>>
>> You think this is a better idea?
>
> Not really, but you need to re-direct that question to DT maintainers
> if want a better answer.
I will wait for the DT folks to take a look at this series. Hopefully
DT folks will have some comments on the approach of a virtual device
like this implementation vs specifying this info in the power domain
controllers. I just wanted to run it by you to check whether you see any
pros or cons from a genpd perspective.
I will wait for a few more days for any additional review comments
before sending v3 out.
--
Warm Regards
Thara
Powered by blists - more mailing lists