[PATCH 5/9] ARM: common: Introduce PM domains for CPUs/clusters

[Sudeep Holla]

On 13/08/15 16:45, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13 2015 at 09:01 -0600, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 04:14:51AM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org> wrote:

[..]

>>>
>>>> +ARM CPU Power domains
>>>> +
>>>> +The device tree allows describing of CPU power domains in a SoC. In ARM SoC,
>>>> +CPUs may be grouped as clusters. A cluster may have CPUs, GIC, Coresight,
>>>> +caches, VFP and power controller and other peripheral hardware. Generally,
>>>> +when the CPUs in the cluster are idle/suspended, the shared resources may also
>>>> +be suspended and resumed before any of the CPUs resume execution.
>>>> +
>>>> +CPUs are the defined as the PM domain consumers and there is a PM domain
>>>> +provider for the CPUs. Bindings for generic PM domains (genpd) is described in
>>>> +[1].
>>>> +
>>>> +The ARM CPU PM domain follows the same binding convention as any generic PM
>>>> +domain. Additional binding properties are -
>>>> +
>>>> +- compatible:
>>>> +       Usage: required
>>>> +       Value type: <string>
>>>> +       Definition: Must also have
>>>> +                       "arm,pd"
>>>> +               inorder to initialize the genpd provider as ARM CPU PM domain.
>>>
>>> A compatible string should represent a particular h/w block. If it is
>>> generic, it should represent some sort of standard programming
>>> interface (e.g, AHCI, EHCI, etc.). This doesn't seem to be either and
>>> is rather just a mapping of what "driver" you want to use.
>>>
>>> I would expect that identifying a cpu's or cluster's power domain
>>> would be done by a phandle between the cpu/cluster node and power
>>> domain node. But I've not really looked at the power domain bindings
>>> so who knows.
>>
>> I would expect the same, meaning that a cpu node, like any other device
>> node would have a phandle pointing at the respective HW power domain.
>>
> CPUs have phandles to their domains. That is how the relationship
> between the domain provider (power-controller) and the consumer (CPU) is
> established.
>
>> I do not really understand why we want a "generic" CPU power domain, what
>> purpose does it serve ? Creating a collection of cpu devices that we
>> can call "cluster" ?
>>
> Nope, not for calling a cluster, a cluster :)
>
> This compatible is used to define a generic behavior of the CPU domain
> controller (in addition to the platform specific behavior of the domain
> power controller). The kernel activities for such power controller are
> generally the same which otherwise would be repeated across platforms.

Having gone through this series and the one using it[1], the only common
activity is just cluster pm notifiers. Other than that it's just
creating indirection for now. The scenario might change in future, but
for now it seems unnecessary.

Also if you look at the shmobile power controller driver, it covers all
the devices including CPUs unlike QCOM power controller which handles
only CPU. Yes we can skip CPU genpd creation there only for CPU, IMO
creating the power domains should be part of power controller driver.

You can add helper functions for all the ARM specific code that can be
reused by multiple power controller drivers handling CPU/Cluster power
domain.

> An analogy to this would be the "arm,idle-state" that defines the DT
> node as something that also depicts a generic cpuidle C state.
>

I tend to disagree. In idle-states, the nodes define that generic
properties and they can be parsed in a generic way. That's not the case
here. Each power controller binding differs.

Yes the generic compatible might be useful to identify that this power
domain handles CPU/Cluster, but there will be more power controller
specific things compared to generic code.

Regards,
Sudeep

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg437304.html