Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] PM / Domains: Add support for devices that require multiple domains

[Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

On 2 November 2016 at 09:56, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> On 10/31/2016 04:14 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Rajendra,
>>
>> On 06/10/16 09:43, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/06/2016 01:55 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> Hi Rajendra,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/10/16 07:04, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/20/2016 03:58 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>>> The Tegra124/210 XUSB subsystem (that consists of both host and device
>>>>>> controllers) is partitioned across 3 PM domains which are:
>>>>>> - XUSBA: Superspeed logic (for USB 3.0)
>>>>>> - XUSBB: Device controller
>>>>>> - XUSBC: Host controller
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These power domains are not nested and can be powered-up and down
>>>>>> independently of one another. In practice different scenarios require
>>>>>> different combinations of the power domains, for example:
>>>>>> - Superspeed host: XUSBA and XUSBC
>>>>>> - Superspeed device: XUSBA and XUSBB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although it could be possible to logically nest both the XUSBB and XUSBC
>>>>>> domains under the XUSBA, superspeed may not always be used/required and
>>>>>> so this would keep it on unnecessarily.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Jon, so does this RFC provide a way to just specify multiple Powerdomains
>>>>> for a device (which then will *all* be powered on/off together) or does
>>>>> it also provide for more granular control of these powerdomains?
>>>>
>>>> Only to specify multiple power-domains for a device and not the later.
>>>>
>>>>> The above statement seems to suggest you would need more granular control
>>>>> of these powerdomains (like keeping XUSBA off in case superspeed it not
>>>>> needed) but I can't seem to figure out how you achieve it with this series.
>>>>
>>>> It is an interesting point but today we have always kept the superspeed
>>>> partition on if the device is configured for superspeed regardless of
>>>> what is actually connected. I will check to see if the h/w would allow
>>>> us to turn it off if a non-superspeed device is in use but I did not
>>>> think so.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any interesting use-cases that would make use of this or
>>>> require other such enhancements?
>>>
>>> We do have atleast a few devices which need to control multiple power domains,
>>> I will need to look more to see if any of them can be controlled individually.
>>> The downstream code we have models these (powerdomains) as regulators and
>>> the drivers hence have individual control on each (specifying multiple -supply's
>>> in DT)
>>
>> Were you able to check to see if you need to have individual control for the power-domains?
>
> I had a look at the Video decode block (for msm8996), which seems to be powered using 3 different
> powerdomains, mainly venus, venus_core0 and venus_core1. The venus PD powers the ARM core
> which runs the firmware, while the venus_core0 and venus_core1 power the encode/decode logic,
> so for things like firmware image loading you ideally need only venus PD to be ON, but during
> an encode/decode operation you would need all 3 to be ON.

Isn't there a scenario when encoding *or* decoding happens, not always both?

If so, doesn't that mean you may have venus + venus_core0 powered and
in some other case venus + venus_core1 powered?

> The downstream driver turns *all* of them together, and does not control them individually.
> For upstream, the way we have it working (the driver is not merged) is by having venus be the parent
> of venus_core0 and venus_core0 as the parent of venus_core1, and having venus_core1 mentioned as
> the powerdomain for the video decode block in DT.
>
> So in summary, there is still no need to control them individually, but given there is no way to
> specify more than one powerdomain for a given device, we are ending up hooking up some
> parent/child relations in the powerdomain code.
>

I think a better solution would be to model the video decode block as
three struct devices.

1) The main ARM device, attached to the venus PM domain.
2) The encoder device, having the main device assigned as its parent
and being attached to the venus_core0 PM domain.
3) The decoder device, having the main device assigned as its parent
and being attached to the venus_core1 PM domain.

Then there is no need to specific a  PM domain hierarchy (which seems
to be the issue here), but instead only the parent/child relationships
between the struct devices.

Moreover, as you deploy runtime PM for these devices, you can more
easily distinguish which device you need to operate on
(pm_runtime_get|put*()) depending on what particular operations you
want to do (encode, decode etc).

Would that work?

Kind regards
Uffe