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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1490024 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains

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

  Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with  multiple domains Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2016-09-23 15:00 +0200
    Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with  multiple domains Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2016-09-23 16:30 +0200
      Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with  multiple domains Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2016-09-30 10:10 +0200

#1490024 — Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices with multiple domains

Hi Geert,

On 21/09/16 15:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> 
> 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?

I would like to see some agreement about whether we would allow the
'power-domains' property to have more than one power-domain. We could
always improve the implementation in the future. I am quite happy to
re-work this RFC to avoid duplicated domains for devices like Renesas if
people are on board with the overall proposal.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1490164

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>;

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

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

#1493935

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web