lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv1 4/8] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916: Use more generic idle state names
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:08:09AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:33 PM Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:43:19PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:42 PM Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 04:59:42PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > > > Instead of using Qualcomm-specific terminology, use generic node names
> > > > > for the idle states that are easier to understand. Move the description
> > > > > into the "idle-state-name" property.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 11 ++++++-----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > > index ded1052e5693..400b609bb3fd 100644
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
> > > > > reg = <0x0>;
> > > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@
> > > > > reg = <0x1>;
> > > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@
> > > > > reg = <0x2>;
> > > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > > @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@
> > > > > reg = <0x3>;
> > > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > > @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@
> > > > > idle-states {
> > > > > entry-method="psci";
> > > >
> > > > Please add a space before and after "=".
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - CPU_SPC: spc {
> > > > > + CPU_SLEEP_0: cpu-sleep-0 {
> > > >
> > > > While I like your idea of using power state names from
> > > > Server Base System Architecture document (SBSA) where applicable,
> > > > does each qcom power state have a matching state in SBSA?
> > > >
> > > > These are the qcom power states:
> > > > https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.4/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/lpm-levels.txt?h=msm-4.4#n53
> > > >
> > > > Note that qcom defines:
> > > > "wfi", "retention", "gdhs", "pc", "fpc"
> > > > while SBSA simply defines "idle_standby" (aka wfi), "idle_retention", "sleep".
> > > >
> > > > Unless you know the equivalent name for each qcom power state
> > > > (perhaps several qcom power states are really the same SBSA state?),
> > > > I think that you should omit the renaming from this patch series.
> > >
> > > That is what SLEEP_0, SLEEP_1, SLEEP_2 could be used for.
> >
> > Ok, sounds good to me.
> >
> > >
> > > IOW, all these qcom definitions are nicely represented in the
> > > state-name and we could simply stick to SLEEP_0, SLEEP_1 for the node
> > > names. There is wide variability in the the names of the qcom idle
> > > states across SoC families downstream, so I'd argue against using
> > > those for the node names.
> > >
> > > Just for cpu states (non-wfi) I see the use of the following names
> > > downstream across families. The C<num> seems to come from x86
> > > world[1]:
> > >
> > > - C4, standalone power collapse (spc)
> > > - C4, power collapse (fpc)
> > > - C2D, retention
> > > - C3, power collapse (pc)
> > > - C4, rail power collapse (rail-pc)
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.hardwaresecrets.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-cpu-c-states-power-saving-modes/
> >
> > Indeed, there seems to be mixed names used, I've also seen "fpc-def".
> >
> > So, you have convinced me.
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Niklas
>
> Can I take that as a Reviewed-by?

Reviewed-by: Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-21 10:51    [W:0.076 / U:8.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site