[RFC PATCH v3 2/2] clk: exynos5420: Make sure MDMA0 clock is enabled during suspend

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Sylwester,

On 04/01/2015 01:03 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> 
> On 31/03/15 22:00, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 03/31/2015 04:38 PM, Abhilash Kesavan wrote:
>>> javier.martinez at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>>> Unfortunately I don't fully understand why this clock needs to be
>>>> enabled. It would be good if someone at Samsung can explain in
>>>> more detail what the real problem really is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had a look at this some more today. The problem actually occurs when the
>>> mdma0 clock's parent - aclk266_g2d gets disabled. The run-time pm support
>>> in the dma driver disables mdma0 and in turn aclk266_g2d which causes the
>>> issue.
>>> From the User Manual, it appears that aclk266_g2d should be gated only when
>>> certain bits in the clock gating status register are 0. I cannot say for
>>> certain, but our gating the aclk266_g2d clock without the CG_STATUS bits
>>> being 0 could be a cause of the suspend failure.
>>>
>> 
>> Thanks a lot for the explanation. I see the NOTE at the bottom of section
>> 7.9.1.159 CLK_GATE_BUS_TOP that mentions that. I'll add this information
>> to the commit message when posting as a proper patch instead of a RFC.
>> 
>> I confirmed that changing the patch to prevent "aclk266_g2d" to be gated
>> instead of "mdm0" also makes the system to resume correctly from suspend
>> so I'll change that on the patch as well.
>> 
>> I see that many of the Exynos5420 clocks (including "aclk266_g2d") use the
>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag but AFAIU it only prevents the common clock framework
>> to disable the clocks on init but doesn't prevent the clocks to be disabled
>> if all the clock childs are gated so the parent is gated as well.
>> 
>>> As the CG_STATUS bits are not being checked anywhere in the kernel I think
>>> aclk266_g2d (and others in GATE_BUS_TOP) should not be gated. I am OK with
>> 
>> For now I'll just add "aclk266_g2d" but later if needed all the GATE_BUS_TOP
>> clocks (and others) that should only be gated when CG_STATUS is 0 can be
>> added. My patch iterates over a list of clocks to be kept during suspend even
>> when there is only one for now so adding more later if needed will be trivial.
> 
> It's not clear what subsystems affect state of the CG_STATUSx registers, it
> would be good if we could get more information on that. They are in the PMU
> block and are related to LPI (Low Power Interface handshaking), but what
> subsystems/peripheral blocks exactly are associated with them it's not clear
> from the documentation.
> 

Yes, I've been looking at the docs again and found out a couple of things:

* Each GC_STATUSx register bit is associated with an IP hw block
* Some LPI_MASKx registers maps exactly with the GC_STATUSx (i.e: 0 and 1)
  and others maps only partially (i.e: LPI_MASK2 and GC_STATUS2)

So it is related to LPI as you said and both LPI_MASKx and GC_STATUSx are
part of the PMU register address space.

In the particular case of aclk266_g2d, the doc says that the clock can only
be gated when CG_STATUS0[20] and CG_STATUS0[21] are 0. These are associated
with the SSS and SSS_SLIM respectively which AFAIU are crypto h/w modules.

> I think it's essential to understand what triggers changes in CG_STATUSx
> registers, before we start checking their value in the clock driver.
>

Indeed, we should really understand what the status on these registers
means. Also is not clear from the docs how much time should be waited,
how long until giving up, etc.

> Also it might be that there are indeed some clocks which must stay enabled
> over suspend/resume cycle, then the approach with enabling/disabling clocks
> in the clock driver might not be such a hack as it looks at first sight.
>

Having a clock driver to both a provider and consumer feels hacky to me as
well but I didn't find a better way to solve this issue... another option
is to have this workaround to solve the S2R issue while we figure out what
the the state in the CG_STATUSx really mean.

>> Or do you think that I should add all the GATE_BUS_TOP clocks now?
> 
> No, please don't do that. That includes many important clocks and we should
> be certain what we are doing. I don't think it is expected to touch those
> clocks in that way, it would likely cause more issues.
> 
> 

Perfect, I just asked since it was not clear to me from Abhilash comment.
But I also agree to only focus on the clock that is causing issues now.

Best regards,
Javier