[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7h1prnqn3v.fsf@baylibre.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:43:16 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, "Rafael J.
Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] pmdomain: core: use DT map to support hierarchy
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com> writes:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 02:58:52PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Currently, PM domains can only support hierarchy for simple
>>> providers (e.g. ones with #power-domain-cells = 0).
>>>
>>> Add support for oncell providers as well by adding support for a nexus
>>> node map, as described in section 2.5.1 of the DT spec.
>>>
>>> For example, an SCMI PM domain provider might be a subdomain of
>>> multiple parent domains. In this example, the parent domains are
>>> MAIN_PD and WKUP_PD:
>>>
>>> scmi_pds: protocol@11 {
>>> reg = <0x11>;
>>> #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>> power-domain-map = <15 &MAIN_PD>,
>>> <19 &WKUP_PD>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> With the new map, child domain 15 (scmi_pds 15) becomes a
>>> subdomain of MAIN_PD, and child domain 19 (scmi_pds 19) becomes a
>>> subdomain of WKUP_PD.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>
>
> [...]
>
>>> +/**
>>> + * of_genpd_parse_domains_map() - Parse power-domains-map property for Nexus mapping
>>> + * @np: Device node pointer associated with the PM domain provider.
>>> + * @data: Pointer to the onecell data associated with the PM domain provider.
>>> + *
>>> + * Parse the power-domains-map property to establish parent-child relationships
>>> + * for PM domains using Nexus node mapping as defined in the device tree
>>> + * specification section v2.5.1.
>>> + *
>>> + * The power-domains-map property format is:
>>> + * power-domains-map = <child_specifier target_phandle [target_specifier]>, ...;
>>> + *
>>> + * Where:
>>> + * - child_specifier: The child domain ID that should be mapped
>>> + * - target_phandle: Phandle to the parent PM domain provider
>>> + * - target_specifier: Optional arguments for the parent provider (if it has #power-domain-cells > 0)
>>> + *
>>> + * Returns 0 on success, -ENOENT if property doesn't exist, or negative error code.
>>> + */
>>> +static int of_genpd_parse_domains_map(struct device_node *np,
>>> + struct genpd_onecell_data *data)
>>> +{
>>> + struct of_phandle_args parent_args;
>>> + struct generic_pm_domain *parent_genpd, *child_genpd;
>>> + u32 *map_entries;
>>> + int map_len, child_cells, i, ret;
>>> + u32 child_id;
>>> +
>>> + /* Check if power-domains-map property exists */
>>> + map_len = of_property_count_u32_elems(np, "power-domains-map");
>>> + if (map_len <= 0)
>>> + return -ENOENT;
>>
>> Don't implement your own map parsing. Use or extend
>> of_parse_phandle_with_args_map().
>
> So I've been wrestling with this for a bit, and I need some guidance.
> TBH, these "nexus node maps" and of_parse_phandle_with_args_map() are
> breaking my brain.
OK, nevermind. I *think* I have a better grasp on how they should be used
now. I've submitted a v3 of the RFC[1], but could defintely still use
some guidance.
Kevin
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20250613-pmdomain-hierarchy-onecell-v3-0-5c770676fce7@baylibre.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists