[PATCH RFC 1/2] Documentation: arm: define DT bindings for system suspend
sudeep.holla at arm.com
Thu Feb 5 05:49:43 PST 2015
On 05/02/15 13:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 01:28:32PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 04/02/15 16:10, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> Hi Sudeep,
>>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:35:54AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>> ARM based platforms implement unique ways to enter system suspend
>>>> (i.e. Suspend to RAM). The mechanism and the parameters defining the
>>>> system state vary on a per-platform basis forcing the OS to handle it
>>>> in very platform specific way.
>>>> Since ARM 32-bit systems had machine specific code, no attempts to
>>>> standardize are being made as it provides easy way to implement suspend
>>>> operations in a platform specific manner. However, this approach not
>>>> only makes maintainance more difficult as the number of platforms
>>>> supported increases but also not feasible for ARM64.
>>>> This DT binding aims at standardizing the system suspend for ARM
>>>> platforms. ARM64 platforms mandates entry-method property in DT for
>>>> this system suspend node.
>>>> On system implementing PSCI as an enable-method to enter system suspend,
>>>> the PSCI CPU suspend method is used on versions upto v0.2 and requires
>>>> the power_state parameter to be passed to the PSCI CPU suspend function.
>>>> This parameter is platform specific, therefore must be provided by
>>>> firmware to the OS in order to enable proper call sequence.
>>>> This ARM system suspend DT bindings rely on a property
>>>> (i.e. arm,psci-suspend-param) in the PSCI DT bindings that describes
>>>> how the PSCI CPU suspend power_state parameter should be defined in DT.
>>> A short while ago (after this posting), the PSCI 1.0 spec  was
>>> released, featuring the new (optional) SYSTEM_SUSPEND mechanism intended
>>> for suspend to RAM. This has a standard ID, and its presence can be
>>> detected via the new standard PSCI_FEATURES call.
>>> The fundamental mechanism is identical. We would hot unplug all but one
>>> CPU, and from this remaining CPU we would make a SYSTEM_SUSPEND call.
>>> The major differences are that SYSTEM_SUSPEND can be detected via
>>> PSCI_FEATURES, and doesn't need a state parameter.
>>> Given that the only mandatory addition in PSCI 1.0 over PSCI 0.2 is the
>>> PSCI_FEATURES call (used to detect the presence of SYSTEM_SUSPEND), I do
>>> not believe that implementing this should be a signficant overhead
>>> compared to implementing the CPU_SUSPEND based approach with PSCI 0.2.
>>> So I'd very much prefer that we require a minimal PSCI 1.0 with
>>> SYSTEM_SUSPEND rather than extending CPU_SUSPEND in this manner. Is
>>> anyone attempting to implement suspend to RAM with PSCI 0.1?
>> I too prefer have PSCI v1.0 for SYSTEM SUSPEND support, which eliminates
>> the need for this binding. But the question is: are silicon vendors
>> ready to upgrade their firmware to PSCI v1.0 for system system feature
>> especially since it's one of the fundamental feature needed in Android
> Sure. That's the question I'd like to know the answer to.
Right, I too hope to get response here.
> If they're bringing up PSCIv0.2 now, the delta to PSCIv0.1 is not large.
> If they already have an implementation baked, then that's a different
> Regardless, what constitutes a wakeup device is a fundamental question
IIUC individual devices can expose if they are wake-up capable. E.g.
RTC can be wakeup capable and if it's enabled(sysfs entry exists, I did
use it to test on Juno), it's interrupt is kept unmasked in suspend path
while other devices keep their interrupts masked(can be both at GIC and
> to answer, along with what in the system (e.g. peripherals) the kernel
> must save/restore the state of.
Ideally individual drivers need to take care of saving and restoring
their state. However there will be always exceptions :)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel