All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>
To: heiko@sntech.de, khilman@baylibre.com, wxt@rock-chips.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, huangtao@rock-chips.com,
	zyw@rock-chips.com, xxx@rock-chips.com, jay.xu@rock-chips.com,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/6] power-domain: allow domains only handling idle requests
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:12:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1456366337-10808-3-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1456366337-10808-1-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com>

On some Rockchip SoC there exist child-domains only handling their
idle state with the actual power-state handled by a parent-domain.

So allow such types of domains. For them, we can determine their
state (on/of) by checking the inverse idle-state instead.

There exist one special case if both idle as well power handling
were set as not present, but as the domain-data is defined in the
code itself, we can expect the reasonable developer to define them

So allow such types of domains. For them, we can determine their
state (on/of) by checking the inverse idle-state instead.

There exist one special case if both idle as well power handling
were set as not present, but as the domain-data is defined in the
code itself, we can expect the reasonable developer to define them
in a correct, without adding more checks.

Signed-off-by: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>
---
 drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
index 50c0641..d0990a3 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
@@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ struct rockchip_pmu {
 
 #define DOMAIN(pwr, status, req, idle, ack)	\
 {						\
-	.pwr_mask = BIT(pwr),			\
-	.status_mask = BIT(status),		\
+	.pwr_mask = (pwr >= 0) ? BIT(pwr) : 0,		\
+	.status_mask = (status >= 0) ? BIT(status) : 0,	\
 	.req_mask = (req >= 0) ? BIT(req) : 0,		\
 	.idle_mask = (idle >= 0) ? BIT(idle) : 0,	\
 	.ack_mask = (ack >= 0) ? BIT(ack) : 0,		\
@@ -119,6 +119,10 @@ static bool rockchip_pmu_domain_is_on(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd)
 	struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
 	unsigned int val;
 
+	/* check idle status for idle-only domains */
+	if (pd->info->status_mask <= 0)
+		return !rockchip_pmu_domain_is_idle(pd);
+
 	regmap_read(pmu->regmap, pmu->info->status_offset, &val);
 
 	/* 1'b0: power on, 1'b1: power off */
@@ -130,6 +134,9 @@ static void rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd,
 {
 	struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
 
+	if (pd->info->pwr_mask <= 0)
+		return;
+
 	regmap_update_bits(pmu->regmap, pmu->info->pwr_offset,
 			   pd->info->pwr_mask, on ? 0 : -1U);
 
-- 
1.9.1

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org>
To: heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org,
	khilman-rdvid1DuHRBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org,
	wxt-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org
Cc: huangtao-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org,
	xxx-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org,
	Elaine Zhang <zhangqing-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org>,
	linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
	linux-rockchip-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
	zyw-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org,
	jay.xu-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org,
	linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/6] power-domain: allow domains only handling idle requests
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:12:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1456366337-10808-3-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1456366337-10808-1-git-send-email-zhangqing-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org>

On some Rockchip SoC there exist child-domains only handling their
idle state with the actual power-state handled by a parent-domain.

So allow such types of domains. For them, we can determine their
state (on/of) by checking the inverse idle-state instead.

There exist one special case if both idle as well power handling
were set as not present, but as the domain-data is defined in the
code itself, we can expect the reasonable developer to define them

So allow such types of domains. For them, we can determine their
state (on/of) by checking the inverse idle-state instead.

There exist one special case if both idle as well power handling
were set as not present, but as the domain-data is defined in the
code itself, we can expect the reasonable developer to define them
in a correct, without adding more checks.

Signed-off-by: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing-TNX95d0MmH7DzftRWevZcw@public.gmane.org>
---
 drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
index 50c0641..d0990a3 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
@@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ struct rockchip_pmu {
 
 #define DOMAIN(pwr, status, req, idle, ack)	\
 {						\
-	.pwr_mask = BIT(pwr),			\
-	.status_mask = BIT(status),		\
+	.pwr_mask = (pwr >= 0) ? BIT(pwr) : 0,		\
+	.status_mask = (status >= 0) ? BIT(status) : 0,	\
 	.req_mask = (req >= 0) ? BIT(req) : 0,		\
 	.idle_mask = (idle >= 0) ? BIT(idle) : 0,	\
 	.ack_mask = (ack >= 0) ? BIT(ack) : 0,		\
@@ -119,6 +119,10 @@ static bool rockchip_pmu_domain_is_on(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd)
 	struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
 	unsigned int val;
 
+	/* check idle status for idle-only domains */
+	if (pd->info->status_mask <= 0)
+		return !rockchip_pmu_domain_is_idle(pd);
+
 	regmap_read(pmu->regmap, pmu->info->status_offset, &val);
 
 	/* 1'b0: power on, 1'b1: power off */
@@ -130,6 +134,9 @@ static void rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd,
 {
 	struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
 
+	if (pd->info->pwr_mask <= 0)
+		return;
+
 	regmap_update_bits(pmu->regmap, pmu->info->pwr_offset,
 			   pd->info->pwr_mask, on ? 0 : -1U);
 
-- 
1.9.1

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: zhangqing@rock-chips.com (Elaine Zhang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/6] power-domain: allow domains only handling idle requests
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 10:12:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1456366337-10808-3-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1456366337-10808-1-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com>

On some Rockchip SoC there exist child-domains only handling their
idle state with the actual power-state handled by a parent-domain.

So allow such types of domains. For them, we can determine their
state (on/of) by checking the inverse idle-state instead.

There exist one special case if both idle as well power handling
were set as not present, but as the domain-data is defined in the
code itself, we can expect the reasonable developer to define them

So allow such types of domains. For them, we can determine their
state (on/of) by checking the inverse idle-state instead.

There exist one special case if both idle as well power handling
were set as not present, but as the domain-data is defined in the
code itself, we can expect the reasonable developer to define them
in a correct, without adding more checks.

Signed-off-by: Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@rock-chips.com>
---
 drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c | 11 +++++++++--
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
index 50c0641..d0990a3 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/rockchip/pm_domains.c
@@ -66,8 +66,8 @@ struct rockchip_pmu {
 
 #define DOMAIN(pwr, status, req, idle, ack)	\
 {						\
-	.pwr_mask = BIT(pwr),			\
-	.status_mask = BIT(status),		\
+	.pwr_mask = (pwr >= 0) ? BIT(pwr) : 0,		\
+	.status_mask = (status >= 0) ? BIT(status) : 0,	\
 	.req_mask = (req >= 0) ? BIT(req) : 0,		\
 	.idle_mask = (idle >= 0) ? BIT(idle) : 0,	\
 	.ack_mask = (ack >= 0) ? BIT(ack) : 0,		\
@@ -119,6 +119,10 @@ static bool rockchip_pmu_domain_is_on(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd)
 	struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
 	unsigned int val;
 
+	/* check idle status for idle-only domains */
+	if (pd->info->status_mask <= 0)
+		return !rockchip_pmu_domain_is_idle(pd);
+
 	regmap_read(pmu->regmap, pmu->info->status_offset, &val);
 
 	/* 1'b0: power on, 1'b1: power off */
@@ -130,6 +134,9 @@ static void rockchip_do_pmu_set_power_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd,
 {
 	struct rockchip_pmu *pmu = pd->pmu;
 
+	if (pd->info->pwr_mask <= 0)
+		return;
+
 	regmap_update_bits(pmu->regmap, pmu->info->pwr_offset,
 			   pd->info->pwr_mask, on ? 0 : -1U);
 
-- 
1.9.1

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-02-25  2:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-02-25  2:12 [PATCH v3 0/6] rockchip: power-domain: fix pm domain for support RK3399 SoC Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12 ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] rockchip: power-domain: make idle handling optional Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12 ` Elaine Zhang [this message]
2016-02-25  2:12   ` [PATCH v3 2/6] power-domain: allow domains only handling idle requests Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] rockchip: power-domain: add support for sub-power domains Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] dt/bindings: power: add RK3399 SoCs header for power-domain Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:12   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:15 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] rockchip: power-domain: Modify power domain driver for rk3399 Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:15   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:16 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] dt/bindings: rockchip: modify document of Rockchip power domains Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:16   ` Elaine Zhang
2016-02-25  2:16   ` Elaine Zhang

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=1456366337-10808-3-git-send-email-zhangqing@rock-chips.com \
    --to=zhangqing@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=heiko@sntech.de \
    --cc=huangtao@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=jay.xu@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=khilman@baylibre.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=wxt@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=xxx@rock-chips.com \
    --cc=zyw@rock-chips.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.