Extending OPP bindings

[Nishanth Menon]

Hi Sudeep,

On 01/30/2014 07:43 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:

> 
> I am looking into a couple shortcomings in the current OPP bindings and
> how to address them. Feel free to add to the list if you think of any more
> issues that needs to be addressed or if and how any problem mentioned below
> can be handled with the existing bindings.
> 
> 1. indexing: currently there are no indices in the operating-points.
indexing is based on frequency which is why the accessors use
frequency to pull out the OPP data.

indexing is a horrible idea - on platforms where OPP may be disabled
or enabled for various reasons(see arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c,
arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-omap3beagle.c etc) - the indexing you see in
dts is just a myth that may not exist once the nodes are loaded and
operated upon depending on SoC variations (example efuse describing
which OPPs can be used and which not).

That said, the original OPP[1][2] series discussion started by trying
to kill indexing precisely for the same reason.. once you have it - it
becomes just crazy to deal with.

> 	It's assumed that the list is either in ascending or descending
> 	order of frequency but not explicit in the binding document.
> 	There are arch/arm/boot/dts/* files with opps in both styles.
it should not matter -> opp library should do an insertion sort and
organize it in ascending order once all the data is inserted. (line
449ish in opp.c)

if you see issues with the insertion sort not functioning, it is a bug
and should be easy to track down and fix.

> 	Few other bindings like thermal defines bindings like
> 	cooling-{min,max}-state assuming some order which is broken IMO.
Now that you bring it up, I missed it :(.. yeah, I might have
preferred it to be min frequency and max_frequency - I agree it is
probably broken. I'd let Eduardo comment more about it.

> 
> 	One such use-case that came up recently[0] is the c-state latencies
> 	which could be different for each OPP. It would be good if the
> 	latencies are specified with the indices to OPP table to avoid
> 	inconsistency between the bindings.

You can define C states based on frequencies as well - which really
makes sense - since that sounds really like our constraint (say
valid-at-frequency "xyz"

> 
> 	It's mainly to avoid issues due to inconsistency and duplication
> 	on data(frequency) in multiple bindings requiring it.
> 
> 	Once we have indices to each on the OPP entries, then other binding
> 	using it can refer to OPP with phandle and OPP index/specifier pairs
> 	very similar to clock provider and consumer.

Having used indexing in OMAP platforms, indexing is a problem waiting
to happen unfortunately :(

> 
> 2. sharing opps: I have tried to address this issue previously[1] but unable
> 	to conclude yet on this.

yes - more details in [3] - which is a more interesting discussion
there - lets revive it in that context.

It is a valid concern and IMHO a great idea - yeah we already have a
thread started.

> 
> 3. latencies(*): currently the latency that the CPU/memory access is unavailable
> 	during an OPP transition is generic i.e. same from any OPP to any
> 	other OPP. Does it make sense to have this per-OPP entry ?

Why modify OPP when you are describing something else? you are
describing "latency at a frequency" - just because an OPP definition
as it stands right now is {frequency, voltage} tuple, makes it a very
attractive target to keep extending it -> believe me, we have done
that in the past ->arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp4xxx_data.c efuse register
describing AVS per frequency is tempting..

why not have memory-latency-per-opp = <frequency latency>?

that allows OPP definitions to change in the future, but the
definition remain constant.

That said -> consider the following usecase: AM335x, OMAP3,4... (i
will use omap4 as an example)
MPU at 300MHz and bus (on which LPDDR2 memory is) at 100MHz
AND
MPU at 300MHz and bus (on which LPDDR2 memory is) at 200MHz

are both valid with different memory access latencies. tying it down
to OPP for MPU is just plain wrong - as it ignores other factors.

> 
> 4. power(*): A measure of maximum power dissipation in an OPP state.
> 	This might be useful measure for power aware scheduling ?
Umm.. this is a hard nut to crack -> I had considered that previously
as well -> In reality the leakage characteristics of the SoC
distribution varies dramatically depending on which end of the
distribution you look for a specific process node. in my company, we
typically use cold, hot,nominal devices, this is some form or other
(example - Samsung calls it "SoC's ASV group" [4]) - and every SoC
company comes up with some strategy or other to control it optimally
-> TI uses ABB[5], AVS[6] - etc... - not an unique problem -> so what
will "power" mean? we cannot create dts per SoC part.

> 
> (*) these are already part of P-state in ACPI(refer struct acpi_processor_px
> in include/acpi/processor.h)

Hmm.. what do we do with legacy processors that dont support ACPI or
what ever our latest ARM term is for the equivalent?

> 
> Apart from these I have seen on-going discussion for Samsung Exynos CPUFreq[2]
> which might have some feedback for OPP bindings.
> 
> It would be good to consolidate the shortcomings found so far, that could
> help in extending the current OPP bindings.

I hope this discussion helps. open to more views as well.

> [0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg301971.html
> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg07911.html
> [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg09169.html

[1] http://marc.info/?t=125546601600001&r=1&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=125474840119392&w=2
[3] http://marc.info/?t=138063448000008&r=1&w=2
[4] http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=138451581304412&w=2
[5]
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/regulator/ti-abb-regulator.c
[6]
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/power/avs/smartreflex.c
-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon