Linux-PM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
To: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Cc: khilman@baylibre.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
	linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] soc: amlogic: Add support for Everything-Else power domains controller
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:11:22 +0200
Message-ID: <25e60f94-9be1-76b0-147f-abdd2d01872f@baylibre.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCDDygiafTwLgqB9BimqrmwxL2=HFQD8cX8CQL23AFZNXQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 27/08/2019 00:40, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:10 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/08/2019 23:10, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>> Hi Neil,
>>>
>>> thank you for this update
>>> I haven't tried this on the 32-bit SoCs yet, but I am confident that I
>>> can make it work by "just" adding the SoC specific bits!
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:06 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> +/* AO Offsets */
>>>> +
>>>> +#define AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_SLEEP0          (0x3a << 2)
>>>> +#define AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_ISO0            (0x3b << 2)
>>>> +
>>>> +/* HHI Offsets */
>>>> +
>>>> +#define HHI_MEM_PD_REG0                        (0x40 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG0            (0x41 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG1            (0x42 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG3            (0x43 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4            (0x44 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_AUDIO_MEM_PD_REG0          (0x45 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_NANOQ_MEM_PD_REG0          (0x46 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_NANOQ_MEM_PD_REG1          (0x47 << 2)
>>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG2            (0x4d << 2)
>>> should we switch to the actual register offsets like we did in the
>>> clock drivers?
>>
>> I find it simpler to refer to the numbers in the documentation...
> OK, I have no strong preference here
> for the 32-bit SoCs I will need to use the offsets based on the
> "amlogic,meson8b-pmu", "syscon" [0], so these will be magic anyways
> 
> [...]
>>>> +#define VPU_HHI_MEMPD(__reg)                                   \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(8) },                                      \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(9) },                                      \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(10) },                                     \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(11) },                                     \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(12) },                                     \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(13) },                                     \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(14) },                                     \
>>>> +       { __reg, BIT(15) }
>>> the Amlogic implementation from buildroot-openlinux-A113-201901 (the
>>> latest one I have)
>>> kernel/aml-4.9/drivers/amlogic/media/vout/hdmitx/hdmi_tx_20/hw/hdmi_tx_hw.c
>>> uses:
>>> hd_set_reg_bits(P_HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, 0, 8, 8)
>>> that basically translates to: GENMASK(15, 8) (which means we could
>>> drop this macro)
>>>
>>> the datasheet also states: 15~8 [...] HDMI memory PD (as a single
>>> 8-bit wide register)
>>
>> Yep, but the actual code setting the VPU power domain is in u-boot :
>>
>> drivers/vpu/aml_vpu_power_init.c:
>> 108         for (i = 8; i < 16; i++) {
>> 109                 vpu_hiu_setb(HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, 0, i, 1);
>> 110                 udelay(5);
>> 111         }
>>
>> the linux code is like never used here, my preference goes to the u-boot code
>> implementation.
> I see, let's keep your implementation then
> 
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> +static struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain_desc g12a_pwrc_domains[] = {
>>>> +       [PWRC_G12A_VPU_ID]  = VPU_PD("VPU", &g12a_pwrc_vpu, g12a_pwrc_mem_vpu,
>>>> +                                    pwrc_ee_get_power, 11, 2),
>>>> +       [PWRC_G12A_ETH_ID] = MEM_PD("ETH", g12a_pwrc_mem_eth),
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +static struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain_desc sm1_pwrc_domains[] = {
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_VPU_ID]  = VPU_PD("VPU", &sm1_pwrc_vpu, sm1_pwrc_mem_vpu,
>>>> +                                   pwrc_ee_get_power, 11, 2),
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_NNA_ID]  = TOP_PD("NNA", &sm1_pwrc_nna, sm1_pwrc_mem_nna,
>>>> +                                   pwrc_ee_get_power),
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_USB_ID]  = TOP_PD("USB", &sm1_pwrc_usb, sm1_pwrc_mem_usb,
>>>> +                                   pwrc_ee_get_power),
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_PCIE_ID] = TOP_PD("PCI", &sm1_pwrc_pci, sm1_pwrc_mem_pcie,
>>>> +                                   pwrc_ee_get_power),
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_GE2D_ID] = TOP_PD("GE2D", &sm1_pwrc_ge2d, sm1_pwrc_mem_ge2d,
>>>> +                                   pwrc_ee_get_power),
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_AUDIO_ID] = MEM_PD("AUDIO", sm1_pwrc_mem_audio),
>>>> +       [PWRC_SM1_ETH_ID] = MEM_PD("ETH", g12a_pwrc_mem_eth),
>>>> +};
>>> my impression: I find this hard to read as it merges the TOP and
>>> Memory PD domains from above, adding some seemingly random "11, 2" for
>>> the VPU PD as well as pwrc_ee_get_power for some of the power domains
>>> personally I like the way we describe clk_regmap because it's easy to
>>> read (even though it adds a bit of boilerplate). I'm not sure if we
>>> can make it work here, but this (not compile tested) is what I have in
>>> mind (I chose two random power domains):
>>>   [PWRC_SM1_VPU_ID]  = {
>>>     .name = "VPU",
>>>     .top_pd = SM1_EE_PD(8),
>>>     .mem_pds = {
>>>         VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG0),
>>>         VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG1),
>>>         VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG2),
>>>         VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG3),
>>>         { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(1, 0) },
>>>         { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(3, 2) },
>>>         { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(5, 4) },
>>>         { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(7, 6) },
>>>         { HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, GENMASK(15, 8) },
>>>     },
>>>     .num_mem_pds = 9,
>>>     .reset_names_count = 11,
>>>     .clk_names_count = 2,
>>>   },
>>>   [PWRC_SM1_ETH_ID] = {
>>>     .name = "ETH",
>>>     .mem_pds = { HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, GENMASK(3, 2) },
>>>     .num_mem_pds = 1,
>>>   },
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I'd like to get Kevin's feedback on this
>>> what you have right now is probably good enough for the initial
>>> version of this driver. I'm bringing this discussion up because we
>>> will add support for more SoCs to this driver (we migrate GX over to
>>> it and I want to add 32-bit SoC support, which probably means at least
>>> Meson8 - assuming they kept the power domains identical between
>>> Meson8/8b/8m2).
>>
>> I find it more compact, but nothing is set in stone, you can refactor this as
>> will when adding meson8 support, no problems here.
> OK. if Kevin (or someone else) has feedback on this then I don't have
> to waste time if it turns out that it's not a great idea ;)
> 
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> +struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain {
>>>> +       struct generic_pm_domain base;
>>>> +       bool enabled;
>>>> +       struct meson_ee_pwrc *pwrc;
>>>> +       struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain_desc desc;
>>>> +       struct clk_bulk_data *clks;
>>>> +       int num_clks;
>>>> +       struct reset_control *rstc;
>>>> +       int num_rstc;
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +struct meson_ee_pwrc {
>>>> +       struct regmap *regmap_ao;
>>>> +       struct regmap *regmap_hhi;
>>>> +       struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain *domains;
>>>> +       struct genpd_onecell_data xlate;
>>>> +};
>>> (my impressions on this: I was surprised to find more structs down
>>> here, I expected them to be together with the other structs further
>>> up)
>>
>> These are the "live" structures, opposed to the static structures defining the
>> data and these are allocated and filled a probe time.
> I see, thanks for the explanation
> 
>> I dislike changing static global data at runtime, this is why I clearly separated both.
> I didn't mean to make them static - the thing that caught my eye was
> that some of the structs are defined at the top of the driver while
> these two are define much further down
> I am used to having all struct definitions in one place

I'll let Kevin leave his feedback on this aswell.

> 
>>>
>>>> +static bool pwrc_ee_get_power(struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain *pwrc_domain)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       u32 reg;
>>>> +
>>>> +       regmap_read(pwrc_domain->pwrc->regmap_ao,
>>>> +                   pwrc_domain->desc.top_pd->sleep_reg, &reg);
>>>> +
>>>> +       return (reg & pwrc_domain->desc.top_pd->sleep_mask);
>>> should this also check for top_pd->iso_* as well as mem_pd->*?
>>> if the top_pd part was optional we could even use the get_power
>>> callback for *all* power domains in this driver (right now audio and
>>> Ethernet don't have any get_power callback)
>>
>> We could, but how should we handle if one unexpected bit is set ? No idea...
> hmm, I see
> if we need it for other power domains then we can still implement it,
> so it's good for now
> 
> [...]
>>> bonus question: what about the video decoder power domains?
>>> here is an example from vdec_1_start
>>> (drivers/staging/media/meson/vdec/vdec_1.c):
>>>   /* Enable power for VDEC_1 */
>>>   regmap_update_bits(core->regmap_ao, AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_SLEEP0,
>>>                                    GEN_PWR_VDEC_1, 0);
>>>   usleep_range(10, 20);
>>>   [...]
>>>   /* enable VDEC Memories */
>>>   amvdec_write_dos(core, DOS_MEM_PD_VDEC, 0);
>>>   /* Remove VDEC1 Isolation */
>>>   regmap_write(core->regmap_ao, AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_ISO0, 0);
>>>
>>> (my point here is that it mixes video decoder "DOS" registers with
>>> AO_RTI_GEN_PWR registers)
>>> do we also want to add support for these "DOS" power domains to the
>>> meson-ee-pwrc driver?
>>> what about the AO_RTI_GEN_PWR part then - should we keep management
>>> for the video decoder power domain bits in AO_RTI_GEN_PWR as part of
>>> the video decoder driver?
>>
>> I left the decoders power domains aside so we can discuss it later on,
>> we should expose multiple power domains, but the driver would need to
>> be changed to support multiple power domains. But will loose the ability
>> to enable/disable each domain at will unless it created a sub-device for
>> each decoder and attaches the domain to to each device and use runtime pm.
>>
>> It's simpler to discuss it later on !
> OK - does this mean you and/or Maxime have "discuss decoder power
> domains" on your (long) TODO-list or do you want me to open this
> discussion after this driver is merged?

Both I think, let this be an open discussion !

Neil

> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> [0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic/pmu.txt
> 


  reply index

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-23  9:04 [PATCH v2 0/5] arm64: meson: add support for SM1 Power Domains Neil Armstrong
2019-08-23  9:04 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] dt-bindings: power: add Amlogic Everything-Else power domains bindings Neil Armstrong
2019-08-23  9:04 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] soc: amlogic: Add support for Everything-Else power domains controller Neil Armstrong
2019-08-25 21:10   ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-08-26  8:10     ` Neil Armstrong
2019-08-26 22:40       ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-08-27 10:11         ` Neil Armstrong [this message]
2019-08-27 22:20           ` Kevin Hilman
2019-08-23  9:04 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] arm64: meson-g12: add Everything-Else power domain controller Neil Armstrong
2019-08-23  9:04 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] arm64: dts: meson-sm1-sei610: add HDMI display support Neil Armstrong
2019-08-25 20:00   ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-08-23  9:04 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] arm64: dts: meson-sm1-sei610: add USB support Neil Armstrong
2019-08-25 19:59   ` Martin Blumenstingl
2019-08-27 22:21 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] arm64: meson: add support for SM1 Power Domains Kevin Hilman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=25e60f94-9be1-76b0-147f-abdd2d01872f@baylibre.com \
    --to=narmstrong@baylibre.com \
    --cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com \
    --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

Linux-PM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/0 linux-pm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-pm linux-pm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm \
		linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-pm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-pm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git