| Message ID | 1488577697-127445-2-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | Andy Gross |
| Headers | show |
Hi Lina, On Fri, Mar 03 2017 at 21:48, Lina Iyer wrote: > Currently CPUs idle states and idle states of its parent are represented > in a flattened model by the cpu-dile-states property of the CPU node. > The CPUs idle states are followed by its cluster idle states. With the > introduction of CPU PM domains, the CPUs and domain idle states may be > represented hierarchically as part of the domain DT definition. This > would mean presenting idle state information in 2 places - CPU nodes for > the CPU and the cluster's with the PM domains. > > Also, it makes sense to define domains around each individual CPU since > each of them is a power domain in its own right. The CPU idle states can > now be represented as its domain's idle state, defined by the > domain-idle-states property. This avoids presenting idle states in > multiple places in the DT. > > Modify the DT-based cpuidle driver to check for the presence of a CPU's > domain and if present read the domain-idle-states of the PM domain and > if the CPU's domain is absent, revert to reading in the cpu-idle-states > property of the CPU DT node. > > Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@qrm.com> s/qrm/arm/ > Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c b/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c > index ffca4fc..4df7d45 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c > @@ -98,6 +98,39 @@ static int init_state_node(struct cpuidle_state *idle_state, > } > > /* > + * Get the state node at @idx. State node may be defined as domain's idle state > + * if the CPU has its own domain or defined as CPU's idle state if it doesn't > + * have a domain provider. > + */ > +static struct device_node *get_state_node(struct device_node *cpu_node, > + unsigned int idx) > +{ > + struct device_node *dn; > + bool cpu_has_domain = false; > + struct of_phandle_args args; > + const char *property; > + int err; > + > + err = of_parse_phandle_with_args(cpu_node, "power-domains", > + "#power-domain-cells", 0, &args); Should probably have an of_node_put to match this. > + if (!err) { > + dn = args.np; > + err = of_count_phandle_with_args(dn, "domain-idle-states", > + NULL); > + cpu_has_domain = (err > 0); So if a CPU has a power domain but that domain doesn't have any idle states, then we fall back to cpu-idle-states? I think the presence of a power domain for a CPU should mean cpu-idle-states is totally ignored, and this should be made clear in the power_domain.txt binding doc. (I have had this conversation with someone before, I think it was internal at ARM but if I'm wrong and we've already discussed it then I'm sorry!) > + } > + > + if (cpu_has_domain) { > + property = "domain-idle-states"; > + } else { > + property = "cpu-idle-states"; > + dn = cpu_node; > + } > + > + return of_parse_phandle(dn, property, idx); > +} > + > +/* > * Check that the idle state is uniform across all CPUs in the CPUidle driver > * cpumask > */ > @@ -118,8 +151,7 @@ static bool idle_state_valid(struct device_node *state_node, unsigned int idx, > for (cpu = cpumask_next(cpumask_first(cpumask), cpumask); > cpu < nr_cpu_ids; cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpumask)) { > cpu_node = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu); > - curr_state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", > - idx); > + curr_state_node = get_state_node(cpu_node, idx); > if (state_node != curr_state_node) > valid = false; > > @@ -176,7 +208,7 @@ int dt_init_idle_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, > cpu_node = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpumask_first(cpumask)); > > for (i = 0; ; i++) { > - state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", i); > + state_node = get_state_node(cpu_node, i); > if (!state_node) > break; This patch only supports using domain-idle-states for the CPU-level idle states, i.e. it only looks at one level of the power-domains graph rather than walking it and "linearising"/"flattening" the discovered states into a cpuidle-friendly list. That's not a reason against merging this patch but we should note the limitation and maybe even print a warning in if we find a parent for the CPU's power domain but we're using cpuidle rather than runtime PM. Cheers, Brendan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c b/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c index ffca4fc..4df7d45 100644 --- a/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c @@ -98,6 +98,39 @@ static int init_state_node(struct cpuidle_state *idle_state, } /* + * Get the state node at @idx. State node may be defined as domain's idle state + * if the CPU has its own domain or defined as CPU's idle state if it doesn't + * have a domain provider. + */ +static struct device_node *get_state_node(struct device_node *cpu_node, + unsigned int idx) +{ + struct device_node *dn; + bool cpu_has_domain = false; + struct of_phandle_args args; + const char *property; + int err; + + err = of_parse_phandle_with_args(cpu_node, "power-domains", + "#power-domain-cells", 0, &args); + if (!err) { + dn = args.np; + err = of_count_phandle_with_args(dn, "domain-idle-states", + NULL); + cpu_has_domain = (err > 0); + } + + if (cpu_has_domain) { + property = "domain-idle-states"; + } else { + property = "cpu-idle-states"; + dn = cpu_node; + } + + return of_parse_phandle(dn, property, idx); +} + +/* * Check that the idle state is uniform across all CPUs in the CPUidle driver * cpumask */ @@ -118,8 +151,7 @@ static bool idle_state_valid(struct device_node *state_node, unsigned int idx, for (cpu = cpumask_next(cpumask_first(cpumask), cpumask); cpu < nr_cpu_ids; cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpumask)) { cpu_node = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu); - curr_state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", - idx); + curr_state_node = get_state_node(cpu_node, idx); if (state_node != curr_state_node) valid = false; @@ -176,7 +208,7 @@ int dt_init_idle_driver(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, cpu_node = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpumask_first(cpumask)); for (i = 0; ; i++) { - state_node = of_parse_phandle(cpu_node, "cpu-idle-states", i); + state_node = get_state_node(cpu_node, i); if (!state_node) break;
Currently CPUs idle states and idle states of its parent are represented in a flattened model by the cpu-dile-states property of the CPU node. The CPUs idle states are followed by its cluster idle states. With the introduction of CPU PM domains, the CPUs and domain idle states may be represented hierarchically as part of the domain DT definition. This would mean presenting idle state information in 2 places - CPU nodes for the CPU and the cluster's with the PM domains. Also, it makes sense to define domains around each individual CPU since each of them is a power domain in its own right. The CPU idle states can now be represented as its domain's idle state, defined by the domain-idle-states property. This avoids presenting idle states in multiple places in the DT. Modify the DT-based cpuidle driver to check for the presence of a CPU's domain and if present read the domain-idle-states of the PM domain and if the CPU's domain is absent, revert to reading in the cpu-idle-states property of the CPU DT node. Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@qrm.com> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpuidle/dt_idle_states.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)