[PATCH v3 02/15] dt/bindings: Update binding for PM domain idle states

[Lina Iyer]

Hi Sudeep,

On Wed, Aug 10 2016 at 09:15 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>Hi Lina,
>
>I have few concerns mainly due to the lack of description and not the 
>binding per say.
>
>On 05/08/16 00:04, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>From: Axel Haslam <ahaslam+renesas at baylibre.com>
>>
>>Update DT bindings to describe idle states of PM domains.
>>
>>Cc: <devicetree at vger.kernel.org>
>>Signed-off-by: Marc Titinger <mtitinger+renesas at baylibre.com>
>>Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org>
>>[Lina: Added state properties, removed state names, wakeup-latency,
>>added of_pm_genpd_init() API, pruned commit text]
>>Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
>>[Ulf: Moved around code to make it compile properly, rebased on top of multiple state support]
>>---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>>
>>diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>index 025b5e7..4960486 100644
>>--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>@@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ Optional properties:
>>    specified by this binding. More details about power domain specifier are
>>    available in the next section.
>>
>>+- domain-idle-states : A phandle of an idle-state that shall be soaked into a
>>+                generic domain power state. The idle state definitions are
>>+                compatible with arm,idle-state specified in [1].
>>+
>
>So I assume these can be used for the genpd states. Either we rename 
>it domain-power-states or make it clear that these domain-idle-states 
>can also represent the power-states for normal devices.
>
These are the domains' idle states. These states are only used when the
domain goes into idle, not when the domain is active. These are not
power states that the domain can operate on either. Hence the idle-state
moniker.
Also, the bindings to describe the state are the same as arm,idle-state.
It made sense to call these domain idle states instead of
domain-power-states.

>> Example:
>>
>> 	power: power-controller at 12340000 {
>>@@ -59,6 +63,57 @@ The nodes above define two power controllers: 'parent' and 'child'.
>> Domains created by the 'child' power controller are subdomains of '0' power
>> domain provided by the 'parent' power controller.
>>
>>+Example 3: ARM v7 style CPU PM domains (Linux domain controller)
>>+
>>+	cpus {
>>+		#address-cells = <1>;
>>+		#size-cells = <0>;
>>+
>>+		CPU0: cpu at 0 {
>>+			device_type = "cpu";
>>+			compatible = "arm,cortex-a7", "arm,armv7";
>>+			reg = <0x0>;
>>+			power-domains = <&a7_pd>;
>
>This example doesn't consider how do we deal with the presence off
>cpu-idle-states property in CPU nodes.
>
I can amend the example. But to answer your underlying question, they
will exist as separate properties.

>IMO we need move even the cpu/core level idle states into its own power
>domain. It also helps to solve other usecases like PMU, debug/coresight
>devices attached to the core power domain(in most of the cases) while
>they may be in separate PD like PMUs on OMAP. That will help OS whether
>to save/restore the states on idle-entry.
>
This idea was brought up by Kevin earlier in the discussions, but we
shelved it for a later date.

>In [PATCH v3 15/15] ARM64: dts: Define CPU power domain for MSM8916, the
>idle-states are split across the cpu cpu-idle-states and pd
>domain-idle-states property. That looks like a really mess to me.
>
It is pretty clear that CPUs cannot not define the domain idle states.
Domains define their own idle states. Just as you mention above. CPU is
just a single component in its domain. There may be other devices like
PMUs, Coresights etc that also may have a say in the idle state the
domain may be put in, when the devices are idle. As such, adding domain
idle states to the CPU's idle state property is not appropriate.

Our kernel has runtime PM for devices and then there is CPUidle, both
are diverging without one knowing about the other. We have to start
unifying them inorder to have better holistic power management in the
SoC. To that regard, we have to start imagining CPUs as just another
device, albeit a special device. But for our purposes in determining
domain idle state, it will just be a device attached to the domain.

>We need to have all the idle state information at one place and in this
>case PD seems more appropriate instead of splitting them across.
>
That approach isn't correct. Where will we put the idle states of other
devices that are also part of the domain? We are thinking about a model,
where every device defines its own idle states and we define
relationships between those idle states and their parents' idle states.
Ofcourse, devices don't have idle states today, but that is something we
have been pondering over.

>We can also keep the code clean and not break compatibility. Whenever
>both PD and CPU contains idle-states, PD must take precedence.
>
Why?
The CPU and PD states are orthogonal. While the PD state is dependent on
the CPU state, the latter is not true. Devices determine their own
states. Based on the individual device states, we then determine the
state of the parent and bubble up on the hierarchy.

>Also these needs to be documented clearly in the binding.
>
>>+		};
>>+
>>+		CPU1: cpu at 1 {
>>+			device_type = "cpu";
>>+			compatible = "arm,cortex-a15", "arm,armv7";
>>+			reg = <0x0>;
>>+			power-domains = <&a15_pd>;
>>+		};
>>+	};
>>+
>>+	pm-domains {
>>+		a15_pd: a15_pd {
>>+			/* will have A15 platform ARM_PD_METHOD_OF_DECLARE*/
>
>the above comment make no sense in the binding document, remove it
>
Yup. Will remove.

Thanks,
Lina