From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
Cc: David Collins <collinsd@codeaurora.org>,
sboyd@kernel.org, andy.gross@linaro.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd/rpmhpd: Add a max vote on all corners at init
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:40:16 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180619101016.hbgjvev7d3h4yg7x@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f5014664-1639-c610-a50a-db66484428dc@codeaurora.org>
On 14-06-18, 12:05, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On 06/14/2018 03:58 AM, David Collins wrote:
> > Hello Rajendra,
> >
> > On 06/11/2018 09:40 PM, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >> As we move from no clients/consumers in kernel voting on corners,
> >> to *some* voting and some not voting, we might end up in a situation
> >> where the clients which remove votes can adversly impact others
> >
> > s/adversly/adversely/
> >
> >> who still don't have a way to vote.
> >>
> >> To avoid this situation, have a max vote on all corners at init.
> >> This should/can be removed once we have all clients moved to
> >> be able to vote/unvote for themselves.
> >
> > This change seems like a hack. Do you intend for it to be merged and then
> > later reverted in Linus's tree? Could it instead be implemented in a way
> > that does not require reverting and instead is enabled by some DT
> > property? Alternatively, could this feature be added to the power domain
> > core since it is relatively generic?
> >
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>
> >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> >> drivers/soc/qcom/rpmpd.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
> >> index 7083ec1590ff..3c753d33aeee 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/rpmhpd.c
> >> @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int rpmhpd_update_level_mapping(struct rpmhpd *rpmhpd)
> >>
> >> static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> {
> >> - int i, ret;
> >> + int i, ret, max_level;
> >> size_t num;
> >> struct genpd_onecell_data *data;
> >> struct rpmhpd **rpmhpds;
> >> @@ -390,6 +390,16 @@ static int rpmhpd_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >> pm_genpd_init(&rpmhpds[i]->pd, NULL, true);
> >>
> >> data->domains[i] = &rpmhpds[i]->pd;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Until we have all consumers voting on corners
> >> + * just vote the max corner on all PDs
> >> + * This should ideally be *removed* once we have
> >> + * all (most) consumers being able to vote
> >> + */
> >> + max_level = rpmhpds[i]->level_count - 1;
> >> + rpmhpd_set_performance(&rpmhpds[i]->pd, rpmhpds[i]->level[max_level]);
> >> + rpmhpd_power_on(&rpmhpds[i]->pd);
> >
> > Clearly these calls will result in max level requests being sent for all
> > power domains at probe time. However, it isn't clear that this will
> > actually help at runtime in these two cases:
> >
> > 1. A consumer enables and then disables a power domain.
> > - It seems like the PD would just be disabled in this case.
So instead of rpmhpd_power_on() we should be doing gepnd_power_on() or whatever
the API is, so the user count stays at 1.
> > 2. A consumer sets a non-max performance state of a power domain.
> > - It seems like the PD would just be set to the new lower
> > performance state since the max vote isn't known to the
> > PD core for aggregation purposes.
Right, and that's because the patch isn't implemented properly yet. I asked to
do a fake vote from some user with their dev structure, so the vote always
stays.
> Yes, you are right. I certainly did not seem to have thought through this enough.
>
> A need for something like this came up at a point where genpd could not deal with
> devices with multiple power domains. So the concern at that point was that if some
> consumers (which only need to vote on one corner) move to using this driver, while
> some others (which need to vote on multiple corners) cannot, we would end up breaking
> them.
>
> That does not seem to be true anymore since we do have patches from Ulf which support
> having devices with multiple power domains attached which can be controlled individually.
> So if some consumer voting makes some others break, they should just be fixed and patched
> to vote as well. If all this gets handled centrally from within the clock drivers then we
> most likely won't even end up with a situation like this.
>
> I think I will just drop this one unless Stephen/Viresh still see an issue with some early
> voters breaking others.
So what if the LCD/DDR/etc are getting used at boot and someone requests a lower
vote? Wouldn't we just break ?
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-19 10:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-12 4:40 [PATCH v3 0/7] Add powerdomain driver for corners on msm8996/sdm845 Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpm power domain driver bindings Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd: Add a Power domain driver to model corners Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 7:39 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-06-25 17:15 ` Rob Herring
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd: Add support for get/set performance state Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] arm64: dts: msm8996: Add rpmpd device node Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] dt-bindings: power: Add qcom rpmh power domain driver bindings Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 5:39 ` Bjorn Andersson
2018-06-12 6:40 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-13 22:12 ` David Collins
2018-06-14 6:26 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-19 9:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] soc: qcom: Add RPMh Power domain driver Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 7:46 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-06-12 19:06 ` Rob Herring
2018-06-13 3:25 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 19:42 ` Matthias Kaehlcke
2018-06-13 3:30 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-14 0:32 ` David Collins
2018-06-14 6:54 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-14 18:17 ` David Collins
2018-06-15 9:25 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-06-15 21:46 ` David Collins
2018-06-16 12:13 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-06-12 4:40 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] soc: qcom: rpmpd/rpmhpd: Add a max vote on all corners at init Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-13 22:28 ` David Collins
2018-06-14 6:35 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-19 10:10 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2018-06-25 8:57 ` Ulf Hansson
2018-06-25 10:10 ` Rajendra Nayak
2018-06-12 7:47 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] Add powerdomain driver for corners on msm8996/sdm845 Ulf Hansson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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=20180619101016.hbgjvev7d3h4yg7x@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=andy.gross@linaro.org \
--cc=collinsd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rnayak@codeaurora.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).