[PATCH v8 5/7] qcom: cpuidle: Add cpuidle driver for QCOM cpus

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 10/23/2014 06:58 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23 2014 at 05:05 -0600, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 10/07/2014 11:41 PM, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>> Add cpuidle driver interface to allow cpus to go into C-States. Use the
>>> cpuidle DT interface, common across ARM architectures, to provide the
>>> C-State information to the cpuidle framework.
>>>
>>> Supported modes at this time are Standby and Standalone Power Collapse.
>>
>> Why not the retention mode which is in between the standby and the
>> retention ?
>>
> Retention would appear 'hacky' in comparision to these code, and has
> dependencies on clocks. So at some point, yes, I will submit a patch to
> address this deficiency.
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
>>> index 38cff69..6a9ee12 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
>>> @@ -62,3 +62,10 @@ config ARM_MVEBU_V7_CPUIDLE
>>>      depends on ARCH_MVEBU
>>>      help
>>>        Select this to enable cpuidle on Armada 370, 38x and XP
>>> processors.
>>> +
>>> +config ARM_QCOM_CPUIDLE
>>> +    bool "CPU Idle drivers for Qualcomm processors"
>>> +    depends on QCOM_PM
>>
>> + depends on ARCH_QCOM
>>
> I may have removed it, which I will check, QCOM_PM used to depend on
> ARCH_QCOM

If QCOM_PM depends on ARCH_QCOM, then yes you can remove the QCOM_PM dep.

>>> +static void (*qcom_idle_enter)(enum pm_sleep_mode);
>>> +
>>> +static int qcom_lpm_enter_stby(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>> +                struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
>>> +{
>>> +    qcom_idle_enter(PM_SLEEP_MODE_STBY);
>>
>> Could you replace this function by a generic one ?
>>
>> It would be nice to have qcom_cpu_standby(void) and
>> qcom_cpu_powerdown(void) and let behind the mysterious words 'Single
>> Power Collapse' in the low level code which is qcom specific :)
>>
>> I guess you had to create a single "qcom_idle_enter" because of a
>> single pointer in the platform data. I am working on a common
>> structure to be shared across the drivers as a common way to pass the
>> different callbacks without including a soc specific header.
>>
>> struct cpuidle_ops {
>>     int (*standby)(void *data);
>>     int (*retention)(void *data);
>>     int (*poweroff)(void *data);
>> };
>>
>> So maybe you can either:
>>
>> 1. wait I post this structure and provide the driver with this one
>> 2. create a similar structure and I will take care to upgrade when I
>> post the patchset with the common structure.
>>
>> The issue I see with this common structure is the initialization of
>> the qcom_idle_state_match array.
>>
>>> +    local_irq_enable();
>>
>> local_irq_enable() is handled by the cpuidle framework.
>> Please remove all occurrences of this function in the driver otherwise
>> time measurement will include irq time processing and will no longer
>> be valid.
> OK. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
>>
>>> +    return index;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int qcom_lpm_enter_spc(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>>> +                struct cpuidle_driver *drv, int index)
>>> +{
>>> +    cpu_pm_enter();
>>> +    qcom_idle_enter(PM_SLEEP_MODE_SPC);
>>
>> Where is cpu_suspend ?
>>
> Inside that function qcom_idle_enter() in the SoC layer (pm.c)

It would be preferable to group cpu_suspend with cpu_pm_enter/exit in 
this function.

>>> +    cpu_pm_exit();
>>> +    local_irq_enable();
>>> +
>>> +    return index;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static struct cpuidle_driver qcom_cpuidle_driver = {
>>> +    .name    = "qcom_cpuidle",
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_idle_state_match[] = {
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,idle-state-stby", .data =
>>> qcom_lpm_enter_stby},
>>> +    { .compatible = "qcom,idle-state-spc", .data =
>>> qcom_lpm_enter_spc },
>>> +    { },
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +static int qcom_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct cpuidle_driver *drv = &qcom_cpuidle_driver;
>>> +    int ret;
>>> +
>>> +    qcom_idle_enter = pdev->dev.platform_data;
>>> +    if (!qcom_idle_enter)
>>> +        return -EFAULT;
>>
>> It shouldn't fail because if the probe is called then the cpuidle
>> device was registered with its callback which is hardcoded.
>>
> Yeah, I see the paradigm shift. Even though I know how the caller is, I
> am always backing up the expectation with an error check. Will remove
> that.
>
>>> +     /* Probe for other states, including standby */
>>> +    ret = dt_init_idle_driver(drv, qcom_idle_state_match, 0);
>>
>> Are you sure it is not worth to add the simple WFI state ? It may have
>> less latency than the standby mode, no ?
>>
> May be. But it would split the bucket between wfi and the cpu plus
> allowing the L2 and the power hierarachy to enter their standby states.
> This could very well be useful and possible, when there is a QoS request
> that disallows power down and high latency states.

Not necessarly a QoS, it could be a state selection from the governor 
with very short latencies.

> IMO, the benefit of the possible heirarchical standby seems to outweigh the
> latency gain we may get by just doing a core's clock gating.

It is up to the governor/scheduler to figure out this :)

>>> +    if (ret < 0)
>>> +        return ret;
>>> +
>>> +    return cpuidle_register(drv, NULL);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_driver qcom_cpuidle_plat_driver = {
>>> +    .probe    = qcom_cpuidle_probe,
>>> +    .driver = {
>>> +        .name = "qcom_cpuidle",
>>> +    },
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +module_platform_driver(qcom_cpuidle_plat_driver);
>>
>>
>> --
>> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>>
>> Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
>> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
>> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog