lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains
From
Date
Hi PM posse!

On 23/09/16 15:27, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
>> On 21/09/16 15:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21/09/16 09:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Some devices may require more than one PM domain to operate and this is
>>>>>> not currently by the PM domain framework. Furthermore, the current Linux
>>>>>> 'device' structure only allows devices to be associated with a single PM
>>>>>> domain and so cannot easily be associated with more than one. To allow
>>>>>> devices to be associated with more than one PM domain, if multiple
>>>>>> domains are defined for a given device (eg. via device-tree), then:
>>>>>> 1. Create a new PM domain for this device. The name of the new PM domain
>>>>>> created matches the device name for which it was created for.
>>>>>> 2. Register the new PM domain as a sub-domain for all PM domains
>>>>>> required by the device.
>>>>>> 3. Attach the device to the new PM domain.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks a suboptimal to me: if you have n devices sharing the same PM
>>>>> domains, you would add n new subdomains?
>>>>
>>>> BTW, would this be the case today for some renesas devices or are you
>>>> just pointing this out as something that could be optimised/improved?
>>>
>>> This is the case for all Renesas SoCs that have power areas: devices belong
>>> to both the PM domain for the power area, and to the PM domain for the clock
>>> domain.
>>
>> To quantify this a bit, for the Renesas case, how many of these
>> duplicated domains would there be if you were to use this approach as-is?
>
> for i in $(git grep -l renesas, -- "*dts*") ; do echo --- $i ---; git
> grep -w power-domains $i | sort | uniq -c | sort -n;done
>
> tells you how many (supported) devices are (currently) present in each
> PM domain.
> Most of these (all but devices in CPU/SCU power areas) are also part of a
> clock domain.
> The synthetic R8A779*_PD_ALWAYS_ON domains could be dropped again,
> as we could just refer to the CPG/MSSR node for the clock domain instead.
>
> For older SH/R-Mobile SoCs with lots of hierarchical domains, that gives us,
> after removing the above:
>
> 1 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi: power-domains = <&pd_a4mp>;
> 1 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi: power-domains = <&pd_d4>;
> 2 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi: power-domains = <&pd_c5>;
> 3 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi: power-domains = <&pd_a4r>;
> 6 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi: power-domains = <&pd_a4s>;
> 15 arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7740.dtsi: power-domains = <&pd_a3sp>;
>
> R-Car Gen1/Gen2 have all devices in the "always on" PM domain, so they're
> not affected.
>
> R-Car Gen3 again has devices in power areas, mostly for graphics related
> purposes:
>
> 16 arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi:
> power-domains = <&sysc R8A7795_PD_A3VP>;

Does anyone have any more inputs comments on this? Does it look complete
bonkers or should I forge ahead with this?

Cheers
Jon

--
nvpublic

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-30 10:06    [W:0.244 / U:0.704 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site