[PATCH 1/8] PM / Domains: Make genpd state allocation dynamic
Ulf Hansson
ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Thu Oct 6 01:36:57 PDT 2016
On 5 October 2016 at 22:31, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org> wrote:
> Allow PM Domain states to be defined dynamically by the drivers. This
> removes the limitation on the maximum number of states possible for a
> domain.
>
> Cc: Axel Haslam <ahaslam+renesas at baylibre.com>
> Suggested-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-imx/gpc.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 10 ----------
> include/linux/pm_domain.h | 4 +---
> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/gpc.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/gpc.c
> index 0df062d..b92dad5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/gpc.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/gpc.c
> @@ -380,13 +380,6 @@ static struct pu_domain imx6q_pu_domain = {
> .name = "PU",
> .power_off = imx6q_pm_pu_power_off,
> .power_on = imx6q_pm_pu_power_on,
> - .states = {
> - [0] = {
> - .power_off_latency_ns = 25000,
> - .power_on_latency_ns = 2000000,
> - },
> - },
> - .state_count = 1,
> },
> };
>
> @@ -430,6 +423,16 @@ static int imx_gpc_genpd_init(struct device *dev, struct regulator *pu_reg)
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS))
> return 0;
>
> + imx6q_pu_domain.base.states = devm_kzalloc(dev,
> + sizeof(*imx6q_pu_domain.base.states),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!imx6q_pu_domain.base.states)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + imx6q_pu_domain.base.states[0].power_off_latency_ns = 25000;
> + imx6q_pu_domain.base.states[0].power_on_latency_ns = 2000000;
> + mx6q_pu_domain.base.state_count = 1,
> +
> pm_genpd_init(&imx6q_pu_domain.base, NULL, false);
> return of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(dev->of_node,
> &imx_gpc_onecell_data);
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index e023066..740afa9 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -1325,16 +1325,6 @@ int pm_genpd_init(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> genpd->dev_ops.start = pm_clk_resume;
> }
>
> - if (genpd->state_idx >= GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES) {
> - pr_warn("Initial state index out of bounds.\n");
> - genpd->state_idx = GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES - 1;
> - }
> -
> - if (genpd->state_count > GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES) {
> - pr_warn("Limiting states to %d\n", GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES);
> - genpd->state_count = GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES;
> - }
> -
> /* Use only one "off" state if there were no states declared */
> if (genpd->state_count == 0)
> genpd->state_count = 1;
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> index a09fe5c..bd1ffb9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> @@ -19,8 +19,6 @@
> /* Defines used for the flags field in the struct generic_pm_domain */
> #define GENPD_FLAG_PM_CLK (1U << 0) /* PM domain uses PM clk */
>
> -#define GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES 8 /* Number of possible low power states */
> -
> enum gpd_status {
> GPD_STATE_ACTIVE = 0, /* PM domain is active */
> GPD_STATE_POWER_OFF, /* PM domain is off */
> @@ -70,7 +68,7 @@ struct generic_pm_domain {
> void (*detach_dev)(struct generic_pm_domain *domain,
> struct device *dev);
> unsigned int flags; /* Bit field of configs for genpd */
> - struct genpd_power_state states[GENPD_MAX_NUM_STATES];
> + struct genpd_power_state *states;
> unsigned int state_count; /* number of states */
> unsigned int state_idx; /* state that genpd will go to when off */
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
In general I like the improvement, but..
This change implies that ->states may very well be NULL. This isn't
validated by genpd's internal logic when power off/on the domain
(genpd_power_on|off(), __default_power_down_ok()). You need to fix
this, somehow.
Perhaps the easiest solutions is, when pm_genpd_init() finds that
->state is NULL, that we allocate a struct genpd_power_state with
array size of 1 and assign it to ->states. Although, doing this also
means you need to track that genpd was responsible for the the
allocation, so it must also free the data from within genpd_remove().
Unless you have other ideas!?
Kind regards
Uffe
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list