lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [31]   [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
From
Date
Hi Rajendra,

On 06/10/16 09:43, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
> On 10/06/2016 01:55 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Rajendra,
>>
>> On 06/10/16 07:04, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/20/2016 03:58 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> Hey Jon, so does this RFC provide a way to just specify multiple Powerdomains
>>> for a device (which then will *all* be powered on/off together) or does
>>> it also provide for more granular control of these powerdomains?
>>
>> Only to specify multiple power-domains for a device and not the later.
>>
>>> The above statement seems to suggest you would need more granular control
>>> of these powerdomains (like keeping XUSBA off in case superspeed it not
>>> needed) but I can't seem to figure out how you achieve it with this series.
>>
>> It is an interesting point but today we have always kept the superspeed
>> partition on if the device is configured for superspeed regardless of
>> what is actually connected. I will check to see if the h/w would allow
>> us to turn it off if a non-superspeed device is in use but I did not
>> think so.
>>
>> Do you have any interesting use-cases that would make use of this or
>> require other such enhancements?
>
> We do have atleast a few devices which need to control multiple power domains,
> I will need to look more to see if any of them can be controlled individually.
> The downstream code we have models these (powerdomains) as regulators and
> the drivers hence have individual control on each (specifying multiple -supply's
> in DT)

Were you able to check to see if you need to have individual control for
the power-domains?

Cheers
Jon

--
nvpublic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-31 12:54    [W:0.148 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site