Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1525118 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-18 10:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state  binding Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> - 2016-11-21 16:10 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state  binding Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-22 04:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> - 2016-11-22 19:20 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-11-22 19:50 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state  binding Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-23 04:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-11-23 17:00 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> - 2016-11-23 23:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state  binding Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> - 2016-11-24 03:10 +0100
                  Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state  binding Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2016-11-24 05:50 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> - 2016-11-23 17:00 +0100

#1525118 — [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.

The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
infrastructure of power domains for active state management.

This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
power-domains: domain-performance-state.

If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
consumers can define their requirements with help of other
infrastructure, for example the OPP table.

Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
@@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
  - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
                    the power controller specified by phandle.
 
+Optional properties:
+- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
+  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
+  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
+  highest value represents the highest performance level.
+
 Example:
 
 	leaky-device@12350000 {
-- 
2.7.1.410.g6faf27b

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1526752 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
> integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
> 
> The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
> management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
> infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
> 
> This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
> power-domains: domain-performance-state.
> 
> If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
> domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
> required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
> consumers can define their requirements with help of other
> infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>  
> +Optional properties:
> +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
> +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
> +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
> +  highest value represents the highest performance level.

How does one come up with the range of values? It seems like you are 
just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP 
in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage 
settings?

Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527193 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
> > 
> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
> > 
> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
> > 
> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
> >  
> > +Optional properties:
> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
> 
> How does one come up with the range of values?

Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.

> It seems like you are 
> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP 
> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage 
> settings?

The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
performance level be enough in such cases?

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527827

Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:

> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>> > 
>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
>> > 
>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
>> > 
>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>> >  
>> > +Optional properties:
>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
>> 
>> How does one come up with the range of values?
>
> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
>
>> It seems like you are 
>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP 
>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage 
>> settings?
>
> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
> performance level be enough in such cases?

I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
actually mean?  Or, what are the units?

Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
frequency/voltage.

In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.

So, if we're going to have a generic DT binding for this, it needs to be
something that's useful on platforms that are not using magic numbers
managed by a uC as well.

Kevin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1527840

On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
>>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
>>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>>> >
>>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
>>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
>>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
>>> >
>>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
>>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
>>> >
>>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
>>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
>>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
>>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
>>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> > ---
>>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
>>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>>> >
>>> > +Optional properties:
>>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
>>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
>>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
>>>
>>> How does one come up with the range of values?
>>
>> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
>> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
>> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
>>
>>> It seems like you are
>>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP
>>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage
>>> settings?
>>
>> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
>> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
>> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
>> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
>> performance level be enough in such cases?
>
> I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
> actually mean?  Or, what are the units?
>
> Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
> might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
> guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
> that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
> frequency/voltage.
>
> In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
> firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
> probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.

In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)

>
> So, if we're going to have a generic DT binding for this, it needs to be
> something that's useful on platforms that are not using magic numbers
> managed by a uC as well.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528101 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

Thanks for explaining on my behalf Vincent :)

On 22-11-16, 19:34, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
> > I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
> > actually mean?  Or, what are the units?

There is no unit. If we have units like Hz and volts etc, then we can actually
use the existing clk/regulator frameworks straight away.

The whole problem here is that the regulator (and maybe the clock on a different
platform) for a power domain are hidden from the kernel and handled by a black
box (An M3 core in my case). All we can ask is for a performance state, a simple
positive integer value.

> > Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
> > might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
> > guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.

We are talking in terms of power domains here and so if the bus/interconnect has
a power domain for itself, then yes we can very much have that situation. But if
the kernel have the capability of configuring clk and voltages directly, then we
don't need this new infrastructure at all.

> > That in turn might mean
> > that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
> > frequency/voltage.
> >
> > In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
> > firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
> > probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.
> 
> In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
> of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
> devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
> we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
> of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)

That's right.

> > So, if we're going to have a generic DT binding for this, it needs to be
> > something that's useful on platforms that are not using magic numbers
> > managed by a uC as well.

What suggestions do you have for this and I am not sure what all cases we want
to solve by this ?

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528537

On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
>
>> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
>>>>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
>>>>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
>>>>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
>>>>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
>>>>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
>>>>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
>>>>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
>>>>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
>>>>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>>> > ---
>>>>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>>>>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
>>>>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>>>>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>>>>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > +Optional properties:
>>>>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>>>>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
>>>>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
>>>>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does one come up with the range of values?
>>>>
>>>> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
>>>> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
>>>> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
>>>>
>>>>> It seems like you are
>>>>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP
>>>>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage
>>>>> settings?
>>>>
>>>> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
>>>> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
>>>> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
>>>> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
>>>> performance level be enough in such cases?
>>>
>>> I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
>>> actually mean?  Or, what are the units?
>>>
>>> Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
>>> might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
>>> guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
>>> that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
>>> frequency/voltage.
>>>
>>> In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
>>> firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
>>> probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.
>>
>> In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
>> of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
>> devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
>> we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
>> of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)
>
> Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some
> unspecified units.
>
> But that makes me wonder, this performance state sounds like something
> that is changing dynamically at runtime, so why do you want to describe
> this statically in DT?
>
> This sounds to me like the job of the genpd.  When any device in the
> domain does its pm_runtime_get(), the domain could check the device
> frequency and see if it needs to change the domain voltage in order for
> that device to operate at that frequency.  When the device goes away
> (using pm_runtime_put()) the domain can check again if it could lower
> the voltage and still meet the requirements of the remaining devices.

That's only part of the job. The device can change its frequency and
as a result ask for a new voltage index while it is already running

Vincent

>
> Kevin
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528808

Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:

> On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>>> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
>>>>>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
>>>>>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
>>>>>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
>>>>>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
>>>>>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
>>>>>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
>>>>>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
>>>>>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
>>>>>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>>>> > ---
>>>>>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>>>>>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>>>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
>>>>>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>>>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>>>>>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>>>>>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > +Optional properties:
>>>>>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>>>>>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
>>>>>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
>>>>>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does one come up with the range of values?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
>>>>> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
>>>>> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like you are
>>>>>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP
>>>>>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage
>>>>>> settings?
>>>>>
>>>>> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
>>>>> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
>>>>> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
>>>>> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
>>>>> performance level be enough in such cases?
>>>>
>>>> I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
>>>> actually mean?  Or, what are the units?
>>>>
>>>> Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
>>>> might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
>>>> guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
>>>> that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
>>>> frequency/voltage.
>>>>
>>>> In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
>>>> firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
>>>> probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.
>>>
>>> In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
>>> of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
>>> devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
>>> we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
>>> of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)
>>
>> Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some
>> unspecified units.
>>
>> But that makes me wonder, this performance state sounds like something
>> that is changing dynamically at runtime, so why do you want to describe
>> this statically in DT?
>>
>> This sounds to me like the job of the genpd.  When any device in the
>> domain does its pm_runtime_get(), the domain could check the device
>> frequency and see if it needs to change the domain voltage in order for
>> that device to operate at that frequency.  When the device goes away
>> (using pm_runtime_put()) the domain can check again if it could lower
>> the voltage and still meet the requirements of the remaining devices.
>
> That's only part of the job. The device can change its frequency and
> as a result ask for a new voltage index while it is already running

That's fine.  Use clock notifiers, or better use QoS (with notifiers) so
that the genpd knows when any of those change.

Kevin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528924 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

On 11/23, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
> 
> > On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
> >> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
> >>
> >>> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
> >>>> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >>>>>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> >>>>>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
> >>>>>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
> >>>>>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
> >>>>>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
> >>>>>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
> >>>>>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
> >>>>>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
> >>>>>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
> >>>>>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >>>>>> > ---
> >>>>>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
> >>>>>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> >>>>>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
> >>>>>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> >>>>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> >>>>>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
> >>>>>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
> >>>>>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > +Optional properties:
> >>>>>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
> >>>>>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
> >>>>>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
> >>>>>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How does one come up with the range of values?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
> >>>>> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
> >>>>> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems like you are
> >>>>>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP
> >>>>>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage
> >>>>>> settings?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
> >>>>> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
> >>>>> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
> >>>>> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
> >>>>> performance level be enough in such cases?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
> >>>> actually mean?  Or, what are the units?
> >>>>
> >>>> Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
> >>>> might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
> >>>> guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
> >>>> that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
> >>>> frequency/voltage.
> >>>>
> >>>> In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
> >>>> firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
> >>>> probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.
> >>>
> >>> In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
> >>> of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
> >>> devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
> >>> we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
> >>> of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)
> >>
> >> Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some
> >> unspecified units.

In some cases we actually know the voltage of the domain and
would want to put some voltage mapping in DT. For example, level
1 is voltage 2V and level 2 is voltage 2.5V. In other cases we
don't know the voltage, all we know is the voltage "corner" which
is a number from 0 to N that is translated into a voltage by the
firmware but is otherwise unknown what that is outside of the
firmware. In this case we've lost the units, but otherwise we're
still interested in requesting some 'level' that the domain be
operating in.

> >>
> >> But that makes me wonder, this performance state sounds like something
> >> that is changing dynamically at runtime, so why do you want to describe
> >> this statically in DT?
> >>
> >> This sounds to me like the job of the genpd.  When any device in the
> >> domain does its pm_runtime_get(), the domain could check the device
> >> frequency and see if it needs to change the domain voltage in order for
> >> that device to operate at that frequency.

How do we check the device frequency? Does the domain need to
know about the clocks for all devices that are in the domain and
what clocks in there are contributing to the voltage requirement?

In out of tree solutions we've 'bucketized' the requirements of
the devices into an array sized to the number of levels of the
voltage domain. When a device requires a new level, we increment
the new level and decrement the old level and then look for the
largest non-zero index in the array. This is the inverse design
of iterating over all devices in the domain to see what frequency
they're running at to determine the voltage requirement. I guess
using PM QoS would be similar here to do the aggregation and then
tell the domain to go to that level.

> >> When the device goes away
> >> (using pm_runtime_put()) the domain can check again if it could lower
> >> the voltage and still meet the requirements of the remaining devices.
> >
> > That's only part of the job. The device can change its frequency and
> > as a result ask for a new voltage index while it is already running
> 
> That's fine.  Use clock notifiers, or better use QoS (with notifiers) so
> that the genpd knows when any of those change.
> 

From my perspective clock notifiers are going to be ugly. At the
point we notify that a rate has changed we're deep in the clk
framework holding the prepare mutex and we're calling it from an
SRCU callback. If those callbacks need to turn on an i2c clk to
communicate with some PMIC to change voltages we're in a world of
pain due to our locking scheme. Maybe that's solvable with a
different clk locking scheme though so I may be overly concerned
here and everything will work out. Also, we don't have any
notification that a clock is turned on or off right now, which
sounds like we're going to assume is the case when a device gets
pm_runtime_put().

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528973 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Introduce domain-performance-state binding

On 23-11-16, 18:03, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 11/23, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:
> > > On 23 November 2016 at 16:51, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:

> > >> Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some
> > >> unspecified units.
> 
> In some cases we actually know the voltage of the domain and
> would want to put some voltage mapping in DT. For example, level
> 1 is voltage 2V and level 2 is voltage 2.5V.

But even in these cases we wouldn't be using the voltage values within the
kernel as we will be giving only a performance state to the M3 core, right?

> In other cases we
> don't know the voltage, all we know is the voltage "corner" which
> is a number from 0 to N that is translated into a voltage by the
> firmware but is otherwise unknown what that is outside of the
> firmware. In this case we've lost the units, but otherwise we're
> still interested in requesting some 'level' that the domain be
> operating in.

> > >> But that makes me wonder, this performance state sounds like something
> > >> that is changing dynamically at runtime, so why do you want to describe
> > >> this statically in DT?

Each frequency a device can operate in has the requirement of minimum
performance state of the domain and so we need these values in the DT.

> > >>
> > >> This sounds to me like the job of the genpd.  When any device in the
> > >> domain does its pm_runtime_get(), the domain could check the device
> > >> frequency and see if it needs to change the domain voltage in order for
> > >> that device to operate at that frequency.

Also note that the performance index may be required to be changed before
updating the frequency in case we are increasing the frequency which needs a
higher performance index to be set.

> How do we check the device frequency? Does the domain need to
> know about the clocks for all devices that are in the domain and
> what clocks in there are contributing to the voltage requirement?
> 
> In out of tree solutions we've 'bucketized' the requirements of
> the devices into an array sized to the number of levels of the
> voltage domain. When a device requires a new level, we increment
> the new level and decrement the old level and then look for the
> largest non-zero index in the array.

For such a design we need to know the index-size in advance and I am not sure if
we should get anything like that from the DT.

> This is the inverse design
> of iterating over all devices in the domain to see what frequency
> they're running at to determine the voltage requirement. I guess
> using PM QoS would be similar here to do the aggregation and then
> tell the domain to go to that level.
> 
> > >> When the device goes away
> > >> (using pm_runtime_put()) the domain can check again if it could lower
> > >> the voltage and still meet the requirements of the remaining devices.

This will be done nevertheless.

> > >
> > > That's only part of the job. The device can change its frequency and
> > > as a result ask for a new voltage index while it is already running
> > 
> > That's fine.  Use clock notifiers, or better use QoS (with notifiers) so
> > that the genpd knows when any of those change.

Yes genpd will be handling it all but it will surely need to know the
performance index for each individual clock rate we support.

The way I have written the code for now is this with another QOS request type
DEV_PM_QOS_PERFORMANCE:

+static int _generic_set_opp_pd(...)
+{
+
	...

+       /* Scaling up? Scale voltage before frequency */
+       if (freq > old_freq)
+               dev_pm_qos_update_request(req, perf);
+
+       clk_set_rate(...);
+
+       if (freq < old_freq)
+               dev_pm_qos_update_request(req, perf);
+
+       return 0;
+}

And genpd is registering its notifier for DEV_PM_QOS_PERFORMANCE request type
where it accumulates requests from all the devices and selects the highest one.

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1528538

Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> writes:

> On 22 November 2016 at 19:12, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 21-11-16, 09:07, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 02:53:12PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
>>>> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive
>>>> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>>>> >
>>>> > The power-domains until now were only concentrating on the idle state
>>>> > management of the device and this needs to change in order to reuse the
>>>> > infrastructure of power domains for active state management.
>>>> >
>>>> > This patch introduces a new optional property for the consumers of the
>>>> > power-domains: domain-performance-state.
>>>> >
>>>> > If the consumers don't need the capability of switching to different
>>>> > domain performance states at runtime, then they can simply define their
>>>> > required domain performance state in their node directly. Otherwise the
>>>> > consumers can define their requirements with help of other
>>>> > infrastructure, for example the OPP table.
>>>> >
>>>> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>> > ---
>>>> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++
>>>> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>>> >
>>>> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>> > index e1650364b296..db42eacf8b5c 100644
>>>> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>>> > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>>>> >   - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>>>> >                     the power controller specified by phandle.
>>>> >
>>>> > +Optional properties:
>>>> > +- domain-performance-state: A positive integer value representing the minimum
>>>> > +  performance level (of the parent domain) required by the consumer for its
>>>> > +  working. The integer value '1' represents the lowest performance level and the
>>>> > +  highest value represents the highest performance level.
>>>>
>>>> How does one come up with the range of values?
>>>
>>> Why would we need a range here? The value here represents the minimum 'state'
>>> and the assumption is that everything above that level would be fine. So the
>>> range is automatically: domain-performance-state -> MAX.
>>>
>>>> It seems like you are
>>>> just making up numbers. Couldn't the domain performance level be an OPP
>>>> in the sense that it is a collection of clock frequencies and voltage
>>>> settings?
>>>
>>> The clock is going to be handled by the device itself (at least for the case we
>>> have today) and the performance-state lies with the power-domain which is
>>> configured separately. If the performance level includes both clk and voltage,
>>> then why would we need to show the clock rates in the DT ? Wouldn't a
>>> performance level be enough in such cases?
>>
>> I think the question is: what does the performance-level of a domain
>> actually mean?  Or, what are the units?
>>
>> Depending on the SoC, there's probably a few things this could mean.  It
>> might mean is that an underlying bus/interconnect can be configured to
>> guarantee a specific bandwidth or throughput.  That in turn might mean
>> that that bus/interconnect might have to be set at a specific
>> frequency/voltage.
>>
>> In your case, IIUC, you're just passing some magic value to some
>> firmware running on a micro-controller, but under the hood that uC is
>> probably configuring a frequency/voltage someplace.
>
> In the case described by Viresh, it's only about setting the voltage
> of a power domain that is shared between different devices. these
> devices wants to run at different frequency (set by the devices) but
> we have to select a Volateg value that will match with the constraint
> of all devices (in this case the highest voltage)

Then, at least for this use case, we're talking about voltage, not some
unspecified units.

But that makes me wonder, this performance state sounds like something
that is changing dynamically at runtime, so why do you want to describe
this statically in DT?

This sounds to me like the job of the genpd.  When any device in the
domain does its pm_runtime_get(), the domain could check the device
frequency and see if it needs to change the domain voltage in order for
that device to operate at that frequency.  When the device goes away
(using pm_runtime_put()) the domain can check again if it could lower
the voltage and still meet the requirements of the remaining devices.

Kevin

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web