From: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: domains: Don't attach a device to genpd that corresponds to a provider
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2021 09:16:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YOhaMFHd6QD6olpg@yoga> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFr+VtGvyfJip-Mu6Gdcj1jQNtkrHRg6tJsJtAKkg0Y9+g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri 09 Jul 08:58 CDT 2021, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 15:47, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 09 Jul 08:22 CDT 2021, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 15:07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ulf,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 2:56 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > According to the common power domain DT bindings, a power domain provider
> > > > > must have a "#power-domain-cells" property in its OF node. Additionally, if
> > > > > a provider has a "power-domains" property, it means that it has a parent
> > > > > domain.
> > > >
> > > > OK.
> > > >
> > > > > It has turned out that some OF nodes that represents a genpd provider may
> > > > > also be compatible with a regular platform device. This leads to, during
> > > > > probe, genpd_dev_pm_attach(), genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_name() and
> > > > > genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id() tries to attach the corresponding struct device
> > > > > to the genpd provider's parent domain, which is wrong. Instead the genpd
> > > >
> > > > Why is that wrong?
> > >
> > > It may lead to that the struct device that corresponds to a genpd
> > > provider may be attached to the parent domain. In other words, the
> > > parent domain will not only be controlled by a child domain
> > > (corresponding to the provider), but also through the provider's
> > > struct device. As far as I can tell, this has never been the intent
> > > for how things should work in genpd.
> > >
> > > So wrong or not, I guess it depends on what you expect to happen.
> > >
> > > Do you see an issue with changing this?
> > >
> >
> > But this exactly what we have in the case of the "dispcc" in the
> > Qualcomm platform that Dmitry is working on.
> >
> > The provider driver needs the parent power-domain to be powered in order
> > to poke the registers and then it is the parent of the power-domains
> > exposed.
> >
> > If I understand your proposed patch we'll have to manually attach the
> > parent domain to the struct device of the controller with this patch?
>
> Not even that would work after $subject patch, as it prevents
> providers from being attached to a domain.
>
That's definitely going to be a problem.
> It sure sounds like you need to control power for the parent domain,
> not only by registering a child domain to it.
>
Yes, we certainly need power to the genpd provider.
> >
> > Is the Qualcomm case unique or will this change cut power do other genpd
> > providers assuming the same?
>
> I think the Qualcomm case is a bit unique or at least the first I
> heard of. However, this change would affect all and of course we must
> not break things.
>
I'm surprised that we'd be alone one that needs power to our genpd
provider. Does everyone else have their genpd providers in some
always-on power domain?
> >
> >
> >
> > Worth mentioning as we discuss this is that we have another genpd
> > provider, where I think the exposed genpds are parented by a few
> > different (each one with a specific) parent domains. In this case we'd
> > be forced to manually attach the genpd provider to the parent domain
> > that it actually is powered by (as no automatic attachment happens when
> > multiple domains are specified).
>
> Yes, that's correct (assuming we don't apply $subject patch).
>
Afaict this patch wouldn't change the case where the genpd provider has
multiple power-domains, as it wouldn't automatically attach the device
to any one of them anyways.
Regards,
Bjorn
> To sum up:
>
> Rafael I am withdrawing the $subject patch, it seems like it may break
> existing expectations of what will happen during attach.
>
> Moreover, it may actually be beneficial to allow the attach to succeed
> for the Qcom case, so let's leave this as is.
>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-09 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-09 12:56 [PATCH] PM: domains: Don't attach a device to genpd that corresponds to a provider Ulf Hansson
2021-07-09 13:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-07-09 13:22 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-07-09 13:35 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-07-09 13:48 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-07-09 13:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-07-09 14:02 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-07-09 13:46 ` Bjorn Andersson
2021-07-09 13:58 ` Ulf Hansson
2021-07-09 14:16 ` Bjorn Andersson [this message]
2021-07-09 18:49 ` kernel test robot
2021-07-09 19:01 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YOhaMFHd6QD6olpg@yoga \
--to=bjorn.andersson@linaro.org \
--cc=dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=khilman@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=saravanak@google.com \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).