Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Add hierarchical domain idle states converter

From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Cc: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>,
	Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Evan Green <evgreen@chromium.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
	lsrao@codeaurora.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Add hierarchical domain idle states converter
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:05:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200207160504.GA8342@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFp-zvD1iFcpRaTFiuazxYmLEx0Czf3=TZJxjSCDmmPsvA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 01:32:28PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > I understand the arguments for using PC vs OSI and agree with it. But
> > > what in PSCI is against Linux knowing when the last core is powering
> > > down when the PSCI is configured to do only Platform Cordinated.
> >
> > Nothing :D. But knowing the evolution and reasons for adding OSI in the
> > PSCI specification and having argued about benefits of OSI over PC for
> > years and finally when we have it in mainline, this argument of using
> > PC for exact reasons why OSI evolved is something I can't understand
> > and I am confused.
> >
> > > There should not be any objection to drivers knowing when all the cores
> > > are powered down, be it reference counting CPU PM notifications or using
> > > a cleaner approach like this where GendPD framwork does everything
> > > cleanly and gives a nice callback. ARM architecture allows for different
> > > aspects of CPU access be handled at different levels. I see this as an
> > > extension of that approach.
> > >
> >
> > One thing that was repeatedly pointed out during OSI patch review was no
> > extra overhead for PC mode where firmware can make decisions. So, just
> > use OSI now and let us be done with this discussion of OSI vs PC. If PC
> > is what you think you need for future, we can revert all OSI changes and
> > start discussing again :-)
>
> Just to make it clear, I fully agree with you in regards to overhead
> for PC-mode. This is especially critical for ARM SoCs with lots of
> cores, I assume.
>
> However, the overhead you refer to, is *only* going to be present in
> case when the DTS has the hierarchical CPU topology description with
> "power-domains". Because, that is *optional* to use, I am expecting
> only those SoC/platforms that needs to manage last-man activities to
> use this layout, the others will remain unaffected.
>
> That said, does that address your concern?
>

I have already expressed my view and concerns in response to Lina and
Bjorn's emails.

--
Regards,
Sudeep