[PATCH v5 02/16] dt/bindings: Update binding for PM domain idle states

[Brendan Jackman]

On Tue, Sep 20 2016 at 17:17, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19 2016 at 09:09 -0600, Brendan Jackman wrote:
>>
>>On Fri, Sep 16 2016 at 18:39, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking at this and simplifying various discussions we had so
>>> far. I was thinking of summarizing something very similar. I couldn't
>>> due to lack of time.
>>>
>>> On 16/09/16 18:13, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I think we're having some terminology issues...
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the kernel terminolgy is actually "PM domain", not power domain.
>>>> This was intentional because the goal of the PM domain was to group
>>>> devices that some PM features.  To be very specific to the kernel, they
>>>> us the same set of PM callbacks.  Today, this is most commonly used to
>>>> model power domains, where a group of devices share a power rail, but it
>>>> does not need to be limited to that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed/Understood.
>>>
>>>> That being said, I'm having a hard time understanding the root of the
>>>> disagreement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I tried to convey the same earlier, but have failed. The only
>>> disagreement is about a small part of this DT bindings. We would like to
>>> make it completely hierarchical up to CPU nodes. More comments on that
>>> below.
>>>
>>>> It seems that you and Sudeep would like to use domain-idle-states to
>>>> replace/superceed cpu-idle-states with the primary goal (and benefit)
>>>> being that it simplifies the DT bindings.  Is that correct?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Correct, we want to deprecate cpu-idle-states with the introduction of
>>> this hierarchical PM bindings. Yes IMO, it simplifies things and avoids
>>> any ABI break we might trigger if we miss to consider some use-case now.
>>>
>>>> The objections have come in because that means that implies that CPUs
>>>> become their own domains, which may not be the case in hardware in the
>>>> sense that they share a power rail.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>> However, IMO, thinking of a CPU as it's own "PM domain" may make some
>>>> sense based on the terminology above.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for that, we do understand that it may not be 100% correct when
>>> we strictly considers hardware terminologies instead of above ones.
>>> As along as we see no issues with the above terminologies it should be fine.
>>>
>>>> I think the other objection may be that using a genpd to model domain
>>>> with only a single device in it may be overkill, and I agree with that.
>>>
>>> I too agree with that. Just because we represent that in DT in that way
>>> doesn't mean we need to create a genpd to model domain. We can always
>>> skip that if not required. That's pure implementation specifics and I
>>> have tried to convey the same in my previous emails. I must say you have
>>> summarized it very clearly in this email. Thanks again for that.
>>>
>>>> But, I'm not sure if making CPUs use domain-idle-states implies that
>>>> they necessarily have to use genpd is what you are proposing.  Maybe
>>>> someone could clarify that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I have not proposing anything around implementation in the whole
>>> discussion so far. I have constrained myself just to DT bindings so far.
>>> That's the main reason why I was opposed to mentions of OS vs platform
>>> co-ordinated modes of CPU suspend in this discussion. IMO that's
>>> completely out of scope of this DT binding we are defining here.
>>>
> Fair. But understand the PM Domain bindings do not impose any
> requirements of hierarchy. Domain idle states are defined by the
> property domain-idle-states in the domain node. How the DT bindings are
> organized is immaterial to the PM Domain core.
>
> It is a different exercise all together to look at CPU PSCI modes and
> have a unified way of representing them in DT. The current set of
> patches does not dictate where the domain idle states be located (pardon
> my example in the patch, which was not updated to reflect that). That
> said, I do require that domains that are controlled by the PSCI f/w be
> defined under the 'psci' node in DT, which is fair. All the domain needs
> are phandles to the idle state definitions; how the nodes are arranged
> in DT is not of consequence to the driver.
>
> In my mind providing a structure to CPU PM domains that can be used for
> both OSI and PC is a separate effort.

Do you mean a structure in the kernel or in DT? If the former, I agree,
if the latter I strongly disagree. I think DT bindings should be totally
unaware of PSCI suspend modes.

> It may also club what Brendan
> mentions below as part of the effort. The hierarchy that is presented in
> [1] is inherent in the PM domain hierarchy and idle states don't have to
> duplicate that information.
>
>>> Hope that helps/clarifies the misunderstanding/disagreement.
>>
>>Indeed. My intention was that the proposal would result in the exact
>>same kernel behaviour as Lina's current patchset, i.e. there is one
>>genpd per cluster, and CPU-level idle states are still handled by
>>cpuidle.
>>
>>The only change from the current patchset would be in initialisation
>>code: some coordination would need to be done to determine which idle
>>states go into cpuidle and which go into the genpds (whereas with the
>>current bindings, states from cpu-idle-states go into cpuidle and states
>>from domain-idle-states go into genpd). So you could say that this would
>>be a trade-off between binding simplicity and implementation simplicity.
>>
> I would not oppose the idea of virtual domains around CPUs (I admit I am
> not comfortable with the idea though), if that is the right thing to do.
> But the scope of that work is extensive and should not be clubbed as
> part of this proposal. It is an extensive code rework spanning cpuidle
> drivers and PSCI and there are hooks in this code to help you achieve
> that.

If we want to take the per-CPU domains approach, we _have_ to do it as
part of this proposal; it's a different set of semantics for the
cpu-idle-states/domain-idle-states properties. It would mean
cpu-idle-states is _superseded_ by domain idle states - implementing one
solution (where cpu-idle-states and domain idle states are both taken
into consideration by the implementation) then later switching to the
alternative (where cpu-idle-states is ignored when a CPU PM domain tree
is present) wouldn't make sense from a backward-compatibility
perspective.

You're right that implementing the alternative proposal in the Linux
kernel would mean quite a big rework. But, idealistically speaking,
Linux-specific implementation realities shouldn't be a factor in Device
Tree binding designs, right?

If people think that using both cpu-idle-states and domain-idle-states
is the pragmatic choice (or object fundamentally to the idea of devices
with idle states as being in their own PM domain) then that's fine IMO,
but it's a one-time decision and I think we should be clear about why
we're making it.

Cheers,
Brendan