Re: [PATCH 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Simplify state node parsing

[Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>]

Lorenzo, Mark,

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 19:15, Lorenzo Pieralisi
<lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 11:14:18AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:59:17PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > Instead of iterating through all the state nodes in DT, to find out how
> > > > many states that needs to be allocated, let's use the number already known
> > > > by the cpuidle driver. In this way we can drop the iteration altogether.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > > > index d50b46a0528f..cbfc936d251c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
> > > > @@ -290,26 +290,20 @@ static int psci_dt_parse_state_node(struct device_node *np, u32 *state)
> > > >  static int psci_dt_cpu_init_idle(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> > > >                       struct device_node *cpu_node, int cpu)
> > > >  {
> > > > -     int i, ret = 0, count = 0;
> > > > +     int i, ret = 0, num_state_nodes = drv->state_count - 1;
> > > >       u32 *psci_states;
> > > >       struct device_node *state_node;
> > > >
> > > > -     /* Count idle states */
> > > > -     while ((state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states",
> > > > -                                           count))) {
> > > > -             count++;
> > > > -             of_node_put(state_node);
> > > > -     }
> > > > -
> > >
> > > To be honest, I'd rather not tighten the coupling with the cpuidle
> > > driver here. For example, I'm not that happy with the PSCI backend
> > > having to know the driver has a specific WFI state.
> >
> > If you ask me, the coupling is already there, only that it's hidden by
> > taking assumptions about the WFI state in the code.
>
> There is no assumption taken - I wrote it down here:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt?h=v5.0
>
>
> > However, I certainly agree with you, that this isn't very nice.
>
> The idea behind the generic ARM CPU idle driver is as follows:
>
> - A generic front-end in drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c
> - An arch back-end (that is defined by the enable-method), on ARM64
>   it is PSCI
>
> As usual with the ARM CPUidle mess, there must be logic connecting
> the front-end and the back-end. An idle state index was used since
> I saw no other generic way. If there are better ideas they are welcome.
>
> Otherwise we must go back to having a PSCI specific CPUIdle driver
> and, on arch/arm, platform specific CPUidle drivers.

To be clear, I am not proposing to change into this. But, since Mark
pointed out his concerns about the specifics around the WFI state, I
just wanted to share what has been on my mind in regards to this as
well.

There are positive/negative consequences with any design, it's not
more than that. If we want to re-design all this, there should be good
reasons and benefits for doing it. Maybe there is, I can't tell at
this point, without further exploring it.

More importantly, so far, I have been able fit my changes to the PSCI
code into the existing model - and with quite limited churns I think.
However, I do need the handle to the struct cpuidle_driver *, that we
use during initialization as patch4 and $subject patch suggests, for
future steps.

>
> The aim was to simplify but to do that we need a connection logic
> between drivers<->arch code, that's the only way we can have a generic
> idle driver and corresponding boilerplate.
>
> > > IIUC we could get rid of the explicit counting with something like:
> > >
> > >         count = of_parse_phandle_with_args(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", NULL);
> > >
> > > ... but I'm not sure that the overall change is a simplification.
> >
> > In my opinion, no it doesn't.
> >
> > To me, it seems a kind of silly (and in-efficient) to do an OF parsing
> > that has already been done and given the information we need.
>
> Yeah. It is boot path with idle states in the order of (max) dozens,
> silly and inefficient, maybe but that should be fine.

Yes, it certainly works as is today.

>
> See above.
>
> > > Does this change make it easier to plumb in something in future?
> >
> > Yes, I need this for additional changes on top.
> >
> > Note that, patch4 also provides the opportunity to do a similar
> > cleanup of the initialization code in drivers/soc/qcom/spm.c. I
> > haven't made that part of this series though.
> >
> > I guess in the end, we need to accept that part of the psci driver is
> > really a cpuidle driver. Trying to keep them entirely separate,
> > doesn't come without complexity/churns.
>
> PSCI driver is a kernel interface to firmware, it is not a CPUidle
> driver per-se, we tried to decouple firmware interfaces from kernel
> data structures as much as possible, again, see above.

I fully agree the PSCI firmware driver/code is not a CPUidle driver,
just wanted point out that *part* of that code, is in immediate
connection with CPUidle.

>
> > While working on psci changes in the recent series I have posted, I
> > was even considering adding a completely new cpuidle driver for psci
> > (in drivers/cpuidle/*) and instead define a number of psci interface
> > functions, which that driver could call. That would probably be a
> > better split, but requires quite some changes.
>
> It can be done but with it the whole generic ARM CPUidle driver
> infrastructure must go with it (and you will still have a standard wfi
> state in the PSCI idle state array anyway).
>
> The idea behind ARM64 cpu_ops clashes a bit with this approach so
> there is a discussion to be had here.

I am open to discuss whatever suggestion there is on the table. But is
there any? :-)

>
> > So, what do you want me to do with this?
>
> We need to answer the question above.

So, at this point, I am not suggesting to re-design the cpuidle-arm
driver into a psci cpuidle driver.

Instead, my suggestion is according to what I propose in patch 4 and
$subject patch, which means minor adjustments to be able to pass the
struct cpuidle_driver * to the init functions. This, I need it for
next steps, but already at this point it improves things as it avoids
some of the OF parsing, and that's good, isn't it?

>
> Thanks,
> Lorenzo
>

Thanks for you comments!

Kind regards
Uffe