From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 16:26:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVTEbqEocYwu=KW_uXpykYkVwUgSJBnLvQp_Epn8Pjp1g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f649d707-8b0a-5ca9-b021-93ae8cf66b33@arm.com>
Hi Sudeep,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>>> On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Geert, so far you have failed to explain what's different from the new
>>> state you are adding and the existing s2idle.
>>
>> I did explain, cfr.:
>> 1. The power consumption figures in the cover letter:
>> - shallow: 8.4 W 6.2 W (secondary CPU cores off)
>
> That's because your CPU_SUSPEND implementation is incomplete. You can
> enter the same state as secondary CPU core off even with idle. It's just
> that we can save by not entering and exiting the CPU hotplug state
> machine. So this "shallow" state can be achieved if your CPU_SUSPEND
> implements that state.
Does that include power areas?
>> 2. The description for patch 3/6:
>> As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves
>> slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.
>> However, unlike "deep" suspend mode, "shallow" suspend mode can be used
>> regardless of the presence of support for PSCI_SYSTEM_SUSPEND, which is
>> an optional API in PSCI v1.0.
>
> Yes I understood that, you need to add an extra idle states to get that
> shallow state. We have discussed this in past to depth. On ARM64/PSCI,
> we will that support "shallow" system suspend mode which can't be
> defined generically. Also we can support this shallow state with s2idle.
>
> Your system probably not supporting all the CPU idle states. E.g.: it
> may just support CPU ON/OFF/RET and not cluster ON/OFF/RET. Please add
> that state to CPU_SUSPEND implementation in the firmware.
I can find CPU_ON and CPU_OFF in the PSCI specification, but not
CPU_RET?
How is the cluster ON/OFF/RET called exactly? I can't find any CLUSTER_*
calls in the PSCI specification.
>From a quick glance in the PSCI sources, there's some support for powering
down clusters.
>> Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear. Let's summarize:
>> 1. On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND is implemented,
>
> OK got that.
>
>> 2. On these platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND powers down the SoC, and supports
>> wake-up from PMIC only,
>
> OK
>
>> 3. If the user wants to use a different wake-up source, these other
>> wake-up sources fail to wake up the system from PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND.
>
> In that case don't enter PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND
Or prevent the system from doing that...
>> 4. Patch 3/6 adds a new "shallow" state, as it allows to save more
>> power (the difference may be due to suboptimal cpuidle platform support on R-Car Gen3, though),
>
> Why can't you do that in s2idle mode. Please give me the difference
> between your shallow state and s2idle state, not just power numbers
> but the actual state of CPUs and the devices in the system.
>From the Linux side, there's not much difference, except that the secondary
CPU cores are disabled. As that is handled by PSCI, the difference may be
in the PSCI implementation. I will have to check that...
On these SoCs, the individual CPU cores and the SCU/L2 are in separate
(nested) power areas. Perhaps these power areas are turned off when
disabling the CPU cores, but not when suspending them.
>> E.g. on non-PSCI platforms with an Ethernet driver that supports
>> Wake-on-LAN, I can do:
>>
>> ethtool -s eth0 wol g
>> echo mem > /sys/power/state
>>
>> and be sure that the system can be woken up by sending a WoL MagicPacket.
>
> Still possible with s2idle if CPU_SUSPEND is correctly implemented by
> the platform.
Sure. But not automatic, as it needs fiddling with mem_sleep.
>> On PSCI systems, the above may work, or may not work. And there's no way to
>> find out (in an automated way) whether it will work or not.
>>
>> If it doesn't work, the user has to configure his system (manually) to
>> not use "mem" state.
>> Since v4.10-rc1, that can be done using e.g.
>>
>> echo s2idle > /sys/power/mem_sleep
>>
>> and my patches make that automatic (for a new "shallow" state instead
>> of "s2idle", though).
>
> How is that ? If "deep" is available as in your case too, why will
> shallow become default. IIUC the user still have to write "shallow"
> to mem_sleep.
After patch 4, if needed (DT property + extra wake-up sources configured),
psci_system_suspend_enter() will call cpu_do_idle() instead of
psci_system_suspend(). No need to fiddle with mem_sleep manually.
> Does this platform use generic arm64 DT cpuidle driver ? I don't see so
> from the DT.
I think that task isn't complete yet.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-20 20:33 [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/6] alarmtimer: Postpone wake-up source registration until really available Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/6] PM / Wakeup: Add wakeup_source_available() Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Implement shallow suspend mode Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 10:42 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:23 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:51 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 11:07 ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 11:14 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:32 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:20 ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 18:06 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 18:18 ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 18:23 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 13:47 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:35 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 10:50 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:49 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 11:07 ` Pavel Machek
2017-02-21 16:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:54 ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-21 17:48 ` Mark Rutland
2017-02-22 14:05 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/6] arm64: dts: r8a7795: Fix non-PMIC wake-up sources Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-20 20:33 ` [PATCH/RFC 6/6] arm64: dts: r8a7796: " Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 10:38 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 16:21 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 16:45 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 17:34 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-21 17:51 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:27 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-21 18:45 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 1:14 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 11:03 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 13:38 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:32 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 14:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-02-22 15:24 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
2017-02-23 15:34 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-23 15:58 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-23 15:53 ` Sudeep Holla
2017-02-22 13:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2017-02-22 14:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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='CAMuHMdVTEbqEocYwu=KW_uXpykYkVwUgSJBnLvQp_Epn8Pjp1g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=geert+renesas@glider.be \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=lina.iyer@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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).