From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F17C432BE for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 03:46:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D96F60F9C for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 03:46:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233679AbhG1Dqt (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 23:46:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60880 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233608AbhG1Dqt (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 23:46:49 -0400 Received: from mail-oo1-xc30.google.com (mail-oo1-xc30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c30]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69CE0C061760 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc30.google.com with SMTP id z3-20020a4a98430000b029025f4693434bso348481ooi.3 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:46:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=X9/Ttley1HiyBx6xJyZs3xHP3lRgNd9DQtcFshUv0Ww=; b=s0q4lFbJtw1BDyfhfL4JP6N4B5nitFldtGIYE2Ay6jg/+PlevFWeqww+5Qg0m+OPo/ 03TTPs5LI/bHEoEyKfU1FNYmSoqGuhBm4NABdfClbTNQZqP+qvb2tBZOFVHUy2mO8fGl UbS3kXBQ1jM/h3IeAZNBlVpigtFl23ali5QF+oh1ofJCo90J4Ges4MSQRmBjvobU+aBR AOZuQmVvgOP61TA9x8T9TeqK9wyD9aRMSZiJ0ZU3ydR93KMTGwIf2Piu5q8tE2IMYhWx 5KBrajlUVdUmMe4mnFb/Jk/RlPUGylwNPh5LqHyms/h1/3tsLaeSiSvhz0104BOPEiLP LC4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=X9/Ttley1HiyBx6xJyZs3xHP3lRgNd9DQtcFshUv0Ww=; b=s2pj0D7f5JH2gcC20upe1W4UrPNPNmvxvaUL7n4PHN2iVhSitc9Z4cKpF0xJPeoMrT L4Nmxutld96X2/Px5FvmhBGzrE9idLfu9zADSTkoC8VR9yf5S8d5iY+WZtWcfRR1cBeD j83THY7KJiAxMUW6icaYVzHTqdL3KkFVb0EN9duc/cHRs0X+yqlvJLfK0r4GaL96o+mQ zGkju/aB3iKa+hPvVtKznxbT2Hi2VkjD3dB39np/82hesYjoGJsjrCRjWjdhd5SuX2pw WKE3f4Op66blYQ65dYv+70ybUt0UHl3R9xWoeb38naC4SewmVJ17pwqK9Xh+9IR126Op RGsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531LRY4EPrpsYq7RkZ8diOKC6KZyQ/ySR78H/uDC5pn5Gj21rvBo N18fm8Fn71eFH0xOaoBymPcGyA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxnK+Awvd9p/hgL7jvGhR8ApUYTH+icENX6THkmZAQZQ1o0lkTtt0FxKku6L5PV3fWh3bjjNg== X-Received: by 2002:a4a:a542:: with SMTP id s2mr15783273oom.78.1627444005665; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yoga (104-57-184-186.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net. [104.57.184.186]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x22sm935256oie.28.2021.07.27.20.46.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:46:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:46:42 -0500 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Rajendra Nayak Cc: Stephen Boyd , ulf.hansson@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, rojay@codeaurora.org, stephan@gerhold.net Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: dts: sc7180: Add required-opps for i2c Message-ID: References: <12711a61-e16c-d2bc-6e04-ab94c7551abe@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Tue 27 Jul 02:35 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > On 7/25/2021 10:31 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Mon 19 Jul 23:29 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/20/2021 12:49 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > On Mon 19 Jul 04:37 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/17/2021 3:29 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > > > > On Fri 16 Jul 16:49 CDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-07-16 13:52:12) > > > > > > > > On Fri 16 Jul 15:21 CDT 2021, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2021-07-16 13:18:56) > > > > > > > > > > On Fri 16 Jul 05:00 CDT 2021, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > qup-i2c devices on sc7180 are clocked with a fixed clock (19.2 MHz) > > > > > > > > > > > Though qup-i2c does not support DVFS, it still needs to vote for a > > > > > > > > > > > performance state on 'CX' to satisfy the 19.2 Mhz clock frequency > > > > > > > > > > > requirement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good, but... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use 'required-opps' to pass this information from > > > > > > > > > > > device tree, and also add the power-domains property to specify > > > > > > > > > > > the CX power-domain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..is the required-opps really needed with my rpmhpd patch in place? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes? Because rpmhpd_opp_low_svs is not the lowest performance state for > > > > > > > > > CX. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On e.g. sm8250 the first available non-zero corner presented in cmd-db > > > > > > > > is low_svs. > > > > > > > > > > what rail is this? the mmcx? Perhaps it does not support RET. > > > > > cx usually supports both collapse state and RET. > > > > > > > > > > > > > That was the one I was specifically looking at for the MDSS_GDSC->MMCX > > > > issue, so it's likely I didn't look elsewhere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed. On sc7180 it's not the first non-zero corner. I suppose > > > > > > > retention for CX isn't actually used when the SoC is awake so your > > > > > > > rpmhpd patch is putting in a vote for something that doesn't do anything > > > > > > > at runtime for CX? I imagine that rpmh only sets the aggregate corner to > > > > > > > retention when the whole SoC is suspended/sleeping, otherwise things > > > > > > > wouldn't go very well. Similarly, min_svs may be VDD minimization? If > > > > > > > so, those first two states are basically states that shouldn't be used > > > > > > > at runtime, almost like sleep states. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But if that's the case, I don't think it's appropriate for the "enabled > > > > > > state" of the domain to use any of those corners. > > > > > > > > > > I rechecked the downstream kernels where all this voting happens from within > > > > > the clock drivers, and I do see votes to min_svs for some clocks, but Stephen is > > > > > right that RET is not something that's voted on while in active state. > > > > > > > > > > But always going with something just above the ret level while active will also > > > > > not work for all devices, for instance for i2c on 7180, it needs a cx vote of > > > > > low svs while the rail (cx) does support something lower than that which is min svs. > > > > > (why can't it just work with min svs?, I don't know, these values and recommendations > > > > > come in from the voltage plans published by HW teams for every SoC and we just end up > > > > > using them in SW, perhaps something to dig further and understand which I will try and > > > > > do but these are the values in voltage plans and downstream kernels which work for now) > > > > > > > > > > > > > So to some degree this invalidates my argumentation about the > > > > enabled_corner in rpmhpd, given that "enabled" means a different corner > > > > for each rail - not just the one with lowest non-zero value. > > > > > > Right, it might work in some cases but might not work for all. > > > > > > > Which makes it way less desirable. > > > > The enable state for rpmhpd power domains doesn't meet my expectations > > for how a power domain should behave, > > Right and that's perhaps because these are not the usual power-domains, > which have one "on/active" state and one or more "off/inactive" states (off/ret/clock-stop) > Rpmhpd has multiple "on/active" states, and whats "on/active" for one consumer > might not be "on/active" for another, so this information is hard to be managed > at a generic level and these requests in some way or the other need to come > in explicitly from the resp. consumers. > I think it's fine if we just acknowledge that this is how the rpmhpd domains works. But I am worried about how we're going to handle the case where the consumer is indirectly referencing one of these power-domains using a subdomain (gdsc). And the open question is if a solution to that problem will solve this problem as well, or if we need to have this and some mechanism to describe the "on state" for the parent of a subdomain. Regards, Bjorn