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=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 731D3C2BA83 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E2D22314 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727009AbgBGQPx (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:15:53 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:41724 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726951AbgBGQPx (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:15:53 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8771FB; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:15:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus (e103737-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.197.49]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 184913F68E; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 08:15:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:15:47 +0000 From: Sudeep Holla To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi , Lina Iyer , Maulik Shah , Stephen Boyd , Andy Gross , David Brown , linux-arm-msm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Linux ARM , Bjorn Andersson , Evan Green , Doug Anderson , Rajendra Nayak , lsrao@codeaurora.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: firmware: psci: Add hierarchical domain idle states converter Message-ID: <20200207161547.GB8342@bogus> References: <6ff7c82d-4204-a339-4070-0154ab4515f1@codeaurora.org> <20200205140603.GB38466@bogus> <20200205161816.GD38466@bogus> <20200206204514.GB8107@codeaurora.org> <20200207111955.GA40103@bogus> <20200207144850.GA18655@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 04:52:52PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 15:48, Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > In PC mode not only there is no need but it is wrong to manage > > any last-man activity in the kernel. I wonder why we are still > > talking about this to be honest. > > I guess the discussion is here because there is a use case to consider now. > If this is what Bjorn presented in his email, I have responded to that. If it's any different, please let us know the complete details. > For sure, we agree on what is the best solution. But this is rather > about what can we do to improve the current situation, if we should do > anything. > Sure, and I haven't found a reason to do that in OSPM yet(as part of the discussion in this thread) > > > > Code to handle PSCI platform coordinated mode has been/is in > > the kernel today and that's all is needed according to the PSCI > > specifications. > > PSCI specifies CPU power management, not SoC power management. If > these things were completely decoupled, I would agree with you, but > that's not the case. Maybe SCMI, etc, helps with this in future. > Why does that not work even if they are not decoupled. The IO/device that share with CPU votes from OSPM and the CPU/Cluster from PSCI in PC mode. There is no argument there, but why it needs to be done in OSPM is the objection here. > Anyway, my fear is that not many ARM vendors implements OSI support, > but still they have "last-man-activities" to deal with. This is not > only QCOM. > I am interested to hear from them. And the same question to same too as above. > I guess an option would be to add OSI support to the public ARM > Trusted Firmware, then we could more easily point to that - rather > than trying to mitigate the problem on the kernel side. > I would say go for it. But don't mix responsibility of OSPM in PC vs OSI. We have discussed this for years and I hope this discussion ends ASAP. I don't see any point in dragging this any further. -- Regards, Sudeep