[PATCH V2 17/17] ARM: exynos: config: Enable cpuidle

Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2014-04-08T09:26:27Z

On Monday, April 07, 2014 11:33:57 AM Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
> <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Monday, April 07, 2014 09:28:39 AM Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
> >> <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> > I know that this is mainly our problem but the issue is widespread on
> >> > our targets and I believe that adding some workaround for it in cpuidle
> >> > core would be beneficial for the whole cpuidle subsystem.
> >
> > On the second look at the cpuidle code there is a "cpuidle.off" kernel
> > parameter which should be sufficient to workaround this particular issue
> > for now.
> >
> >> Yes, we need to find a way forward without you guys holding the whole
> >> platform hostage with out-of-tree code (here and in general, since I
> >> think there are more areas in which this applies).
> >
> > Please explain this more because I really don't know what you're meaning
> > here (at least in case of SRPOL I feel that there are no such issues).
> >
> > In this particular case we have a problem with a modified uboot bootloader
> > versions being broken and incompatible with the advanced AFTR cpuidle mode.
> > This is not the only / main issue preventing AFTR mode and thus EXYNOS
> > cpuidle driver from being used by default so I really think that the your
> > comment was unfair.
>
> Holding off features for users of the platform because your firmware
> is too old (and you can't control the feature per platform) is going
> to get harder and harder, so being able to enable these kind of things
> at runtime will be important. I.e. as features go in, it's something
> that needs to be considered (runtime checking vs ifdef).

In this particular case runtime detection of broken uboot versions is not
possible, otherwise the issue would have been addressed a long time ago.

Anyway this is not the main problem here and we can deal with it on our
side (we will just use "cpuidle.off" on our affected targets).

> Calling that hostage taking? Yeah, maybe a little on the harsh side.
> But the problem definitely exists.

I don't agree that there is some kind of general problem on our side
and you've not provided any specific issues that would fall under this
category.

> >> > Namely there
> >> > should be some way of telling cpuidle subsystem to either disable
> >> > particular state(s) or limit the max available state. I think that this
> >> > can be also useful for testing and development of other cpuidle drivers.
> >> >
> >> > For now please change this patch to add CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=n instead (since
> >> > the config option is "default y" it will be auto-enabled if there is no
> >> > entry in the defconfig)..
> >>
> >> Can the code be refactored such that even if CPU_IDLE is on, it won't
> >> actually do anything useful on the platforms that have problems above?
> >> I.e. determined at runtime, not build time?
> >
> > We can disable AFTR mode by default on EXYNOS4x12 SoCs with secure mode
> > enabled and EXYNOS5420 SoCs (I would like somebody with the hardware to
> > verify that AFTR mode is not working first so we have 100% certainty
> > that we don't regress here).
>
> Does 5420 even work upstream? I have hardware access but nothing that
> will run an upstream kernel as far as I know. Maybe SLSI has an SMDK
> they can help out with?

I don't know the current status of 5420. The initial support was added by
Linaro (I added Chander and Sachin to cc:).

If the upstream support is working to check the AFTR mode one needs to
enable cpuidle driver (CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y) and offline all CPUs except CPU0
(through sysfs using "echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online").

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics