Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 13:30:09 +0530
From: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
CC: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "Greg
 Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
        Michael Turquette
	<mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Stanimir Varbanov
	<stanimir.k.varbanov@...il.com>,
        Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@...cinc.com>,
        Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab
	<mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Taniya Das <quic_tdas@...cinc.com>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov
	<dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] PM: domains: Allow devices attached to genpd to be
 managed by HW



On 2/15/2024 9:57 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 05:29, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/13/2024 7:21 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 at 14:10, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@...cinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/2/2024 5:59 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 00:51, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 01:12:00PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 02:09, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:47:01AM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some power-domains may be capable of relying on the HW to control the power
>>>>>>>>> for a device that's hooked up to it. Typically, for these kinds of
>>>>>>>>> configurations the consumer driver should be able to change the behavior of
>>>>>>>>> power domain at runtime, control the power domain in SW mode for certain
>>>>>>>>> configurations and handover the control to HW mode for other usecases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To allow a consumer driver to change the behaviour of the PM domain for its
>>>>>>>>> device, let's provide a new function, dev_pm_genpd_set_hwmode(). Moreover,
>>>>>>>>> let's add a corresponding optional genpd callback, ->set_hwmode_dev(),
>>>>>>>>> which the genpd provider should implement if it can support switching
>>>>>>>>> between HW controlled mode and SW controlled mode. Similarly, add the
>>>>>>>>> dev_pm_genpd_get_hwmode() to allow consumers to read the current mode and
>>>>>>>>> its corresponding optional genpd callback, ->get_hwmode_dev(), which the
>>>>>>>>> genpd provider can also implement for reading back the mode from the
>>>>>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/pmdomain/core.c   | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     include/linux/pm_domain.h | 17 ++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>     2 files changed, 86 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pmdomain/core.c b/drivers/pmdomain/core.c
>>>>>>>>> index a1f6cba3ae6c..41b6411d0ef5 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pmdomain/core.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pmdomain/core.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -548,6 +548,75 @@ void dev_pm_genpd_synced_poweroff(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>>>>     EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dev_pm_genpd_synced_poweroff);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>>> + * dev_pm_genpd_set_hwmode - Set the HW mode for the device and its PM domain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn't proper kernel-doc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I didn't quite get that. What is wrong?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#function-documentation
>>>>>> says that there should be () after the function name, and below there
>>>>>> should be a Return:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the pointers!
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>> + * @dev: Device for which the HW-mode should be changed.
>>>>>>>>> + * @enable: Value to set or unset the HW-mode.
>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>> + * Some PM domains can rely on HW signals to control the power for a device. To
>>>>>>>>> + * allow a consumer driver to switch the behaviour for its device in runtime,
>>>>>>>>> + * which may be beneficial from a latency or energy point of view, this function
>>>>>>>>> + * may be called.
>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>> + * It is assumed that the users guarantee that the genpd wouldn't be detached
>>>>>>>>> + * while this routine is getting called.
>>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>>> + * Returns 0 on success and negative error values on failures.
>>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>>> +int dev_pm_genpd_set_hwmode(struct device *dev, bool enable)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +     struct generic_pm_domain *genpd;
>>>>>>>>> +     int ret = 0;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     genpd = dev_to_genpd_safe(dev);
>>>>>>>>> +     if (!genpd)
>>>>>>>>> +             return -ENODEV;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     if (!genpd->set_hwmode_dev)
>>>>>>>>> +             return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     genpd_lock(genpd);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     if (dev_gpd_data(dev)->hw_mode == enable)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Between this and the gdsc patch, the hw_mode state might not match the
>>>>>>>> hardware state at boot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With hw_mode defaulting to false, your first dev_pm_genpd_set_hwmode(,
>>>>>>>> false) will not bring control to SW - which might be fatal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, good point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have two ways to deal with this:
>>>>>>> 1) If the provider is supporting ->get_hwmode_dev(), we can let
>>>>>>> genpd_add_device() invoke it to synchronize the state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd suggest that we skip the optimization for now and just let the
>>>>>> update hit the driver on each call.
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) If the provider doesn't support ->get_hwmode_dev() we need to call
>>>>>>> ->set_hwmode_dev() to allow an initial state to be set.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The question is then, if we need to allow ->get_hwmode_dev() to be
>>>>>>> optional, if the ->set_hwmode_dev() is supported - or if we can
>>>>>>> require it. What's your thoughts around this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Iiuc this resource can be shared between multiple clients, and we're
>>>>>> in either case returning the shared state. That would mean a client
>>>>>> acting upon the returned value, is subject to races.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure I understand this, but I also don't have in-depth knowledge
>>>>> of how the HW works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the HW mode set on a per device basis?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm therefore inclined to say that we shouldn't have a getter, other
>>>>>> than for debugging purposes, in which case reading the HW-state or
>>>>>> failing would be reasonable outcomes.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you only want this for debug purposes, it seems better to keep it
>>>>> closer to the rpmh code, rather than adding generic callbacks to the
>>>>> genpd interface.
>>>>>
>>>>> So to conclude, you think having a ->set_hwmode_dev() callback should
>>>>> be sufficient and no caching of the current state?
>>>>>
>>>>> Abel, what's your thoughts around this?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We believe it is good to have get_hwmode_dev() callback supported from
>>>> GenPD, since if multiple devices share a GenPD, and if one device moves
>>>> the GenPD to HW mode, the other device won't be aware of it and second
>>>> device's dev_gpd_data(dev)->hw_mode will still be false.
>>>>
>>>> If we have this dev_pm_genpd_get_hwmode() API supported and if we assign
>>>> dev_gpd_data(dev)->hw_mode after getting the mode from get_hwmode_dev()
>>>> callback, consumer drivers can use this API to sync the actual HW mode
>>>> of the GenPD.
>>>
>>> Hmm, I thought the HW mode was being set on a per device basis, via
>>> its PM domain. Did I get that wrong?
>>>
>>> Are you saying there could be multiple devices sharing the same PM
>>> domain and thus also sharing the same HW mode? In that case, it sure
>>> sounds like we have synchronization issues to deal with too.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry my bad, currently we don't have usecase where multiple devices
>> sharing the same PM domain that have HW control support, so there is no
>> synchronization issue.
> 
> Okay, good!
> 
>>
>> But it would be good to have .get_hwmode_dev() callback for consumer
>> drivers to query the actual GenPD mode from HW, whenever they require it.
> 
> Okay, no objection from my side.
> 
> Then the final question is if we need a variable to keep a cache of
> the current HW mode for each device. Perhaps we should start simple
> and just always invoke the callbacks from genpd, what do you think?
> 

Yes, agree, we can remove the variable and just always invoke the 
callbacks from genpd. But we may need the variable to reflect GenPD
mode in debugfs genpd_summary, or need to invoke get callback there as 
well to get the current mode.

Thanks,
Jagadeesh

> Kind regards
> Uffe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists