[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices that require multiple domains

On 06/10/16 13:22, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 20 September 2016 at 12:28, Jon Hunter <> wrote:
>> The Tegra124/210 XUSB subsystem (that consists of both host and device
>> controllers) is partitioned across 3 PM domains which are:
>> - XUSBA: Superspeed logic (for USB 3.0)
>> - XUSBB: Device controller
>> - XUSBC: Host controller
>> These power domains are not nested and can be powered-up and down
>> independently of one another. In practice different scenarios require
>> different combinations of the power domains, for example:
>> - Superspeed host: XUSBA and XUSBC
>> - Superspeed device: XUSBA and XUSBB
>> Although it could be possible to logically nest both the XUSBB and XUSBC
>> domains under the XUSBA, superspeed may not always be used/required and
>> so this would keep it on unnecessarily.
>> Given that Tegra uses device-tree for describing the hardware, it would
>> be ideal that the device-tree 'power-domains' property for generic PM
>> domains could be extended to allow more than one PM domain to be
>> specified. For example, define the following the Tegra210 xHCI device ...
>> usb@70090000 {
>> compatible = "nvidia,tegra210-xusb";
>> ...
>> power-domains = <&pd_xusbhost>, <&pd_xusbss>;
>> };
>> This RFC extends the generic PM domain framework to allow a device to
>> define more than one PM domain in the device-tree 'power-domains'
>> property.
> First, I don't really like extending the internal logic of genpd to
> deal with multiple PM domains per device. *If* this really is needed,
> I think we should try to extend the struct device to cover this, then
> make genpd to use it somehow.

I had looked at that initially but it was looking quite complex because
of the various structures (dev_pm_domain in the device structure,
pm_domain_data in pm_subsys_data, etc). This implementation is quite
simple and less intrusive. However, if there is a lot of interest in
this and it does appear to be, I would agree that having the device
structure handle this would be best.

> Second, another way of seeing this is: Depending on the current
> runtime selected configuration you need to re-configure the PM domain
> topology - but the device would still remain in the same PM domain.
> In other words, you would need to remove/add subdomain(s) depending on
> the selected configuration. Would that better reflect the HW?

I am not 100% sure I follow what you are saying, but ultimately, I would
like to get to ...

usb@70090000 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra210-xusb";
power-domains = <&pd_xusbhost>, <&pd_xusbss>;



 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-10 13:18    [W:0.255 / U:1.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site