oprofile and ARM A9 hardware counter

[Jon Hunter]

Hi Benoit,

On 05/08/2012 06:01 AM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:

[...]

>>>> P.S. Please note there is also already a different fix in mainline for
>>>> the EMU clkdm data from Paul which adds the force wakeup flag and
>>>> removes the DISABLE_AUTO flag[1] (but leaves the ENABLE_AUTO flag,
>>>> because the hardware is capable.)
>>>
>>> Hmmm ... yes saw this, and you will have to excuse me as I don't fully
>>> follow the logic here. In fact, I am thinking we want the opposite ;-)
>>>
>>>  From looking, into this it seems to me that when PMU is running we want
>>> the EMU clock domain in software-wakeup state and when PMU is not
>>> running we want in the hardware auto state.
>>
>> So far, I'm with you.
>>
>>> By keeping the ENABLE_AUTO flag set, as soon as we enable the clock
>>> domain it is put right back into the HW_AUTO state
>>
>> This is only because it was in the HWSUP state when _enable was called.
>> If clkdm_deny_idle() is used, that behavior will change.
>>
>>> and hence PMU is
>>> not working (see _enable() function in
>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c)
>>>
>>> So really what I think we want is to remove the ENABLE_AUTO flag to keep
>>> the clock domain in software wake-up and use the DISABLE_AUTO flag to
>>> put the clock domain back in HW_AUTO (note this requires a patch to
>>> perform this 2nd part).
>>
>> Well, Paul will have to comment here for the final word, but IIUC, the
>> hwmod flags are supposed to indicate only what the HW is capable of.  If
>> we want to change the runtime behavior, we nee to use (or add) APIs to
>> change the beahvior.  In this case, clkdm_allow_idle(),
>> clkdm_deny_idle() are probably what is needed here.
> 
> Yes, indeed, we should not hack the flags to fix that kind of issue. The
> flags describe what the HW is capable of, and the EMU CD can support
> HW_AUTO and SW_WAKEUP. AFAIK, the issue with that EMU CD is that the
> only valid next power state is OFF, meaning that no retention mode is
> supported. So any transition to idle will go to OFF and lead to a reset
> upon wakeup.

No hacking intended here, just getting the flags correct ;-)

So let me start from the beginning ...

1. I agree that for the EMU CD that the valid HW states are HW_AUTO and
SW_WKUP.

2. When the EMU CD is active (due to something like PMU), we want to
keep the CD in the SW_WKUP state, otherwise we can automatically
transition to idle and reset the IP (at least for omap4430).

3. When the EMU CD is inactive, we want to keep the CD in the HW_AUTO
state because SW_SLEEP is NOT supported.

In the current code, we have the CLKDM_CAN_DISABLE_AUTO flag disabled
and the CLKDM_CAN_ENABLE_AUTO flag enabled. If CLKDM_CAN_ENABLE_AUTO is
set then the omap_pm_clkdms_setup() function will place the CD into
HW_AUTO regardless of CLKDM_CAN_DISABLE_AUTO, and the next time the
hwmod _enable() is called it is in the HW_AUTO state and so it is
allowed to idle. This is not what we want. Do you agree?

If I set CLKDM_CAN_DISABLE_AUTO flag and disable CLKDM_CAN_ENABLE_AUTO,
then I do not have the above problem.

To be honest, with you the more I look and test the code, the more
confused I am by the definition of the CLKDM_CAN_HWSUP ...

#define CLKDM_CAN_HWSUP	(CLKDM_CAN_ENABLE_AUTO | CLKDM_CAN_DISABLE_AUTO)

When I look at where these flags are used, I see that
CLKDM_CAN_ENABLE_AUTO is used in clkdm_allow_idle and
CLKDM_CAN_DISABLE_AUTO is used in clkdm_deny_idle. So this implies that ...

CLKDM_CAN_ENABLE_AUTO = Supports HW_AUTO state when CD is active
CLKDM_CAN_DISABLE_AUTO = Does NOT supports HW_AUTO state when CD is active

Are the above the correct definitions? If so why is CLKDM_CAN_HWSUP
defined as above?

So may be I just needed to understand how these flags are intended to be
used.

> That being said, being able to transition to OFF during idle is a
> perfectly valid state for most powerdomain in OMAP anyway, so we should
> be able to restore from OFF mode smoothly.
> 
> It looks to me that what is missing here is *just* a restore path in the
> PMU/CTI code. But I'm probably missing some nasty details in this issue :-)

Yes agree with this too.

Cheers
Jon