[PATCH v3 3/8] PM / Domains: Allow domain power states to be read from DT

[lina.iyer@linaro.org (Lina Iyer)]

On Mon, Oct 24 2016 at 11:27 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
>On 24/10/16 17:48, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>Hi Sudeep,
>>
>>On Mon, Oct 24 2016 at 07:39 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>On 14/10/16 18:47, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>>>This patch allows domains to define idle states in the DT. SoC's can
>>>>define domain idle states in DT using the "domain-idle-states" property
>>>>of the domain provider. Add API to read the idle states from DT that can
>>>>be set in the genpd object.
>>>>
>>>>This patch is based on the original patch by Marc Titinger.
>>>>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Marc Titinger <mtitinger+renesas@baylibre.com>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>>>>Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
>>>>---
>>>>drivers/base/power/domain.c | 94
>>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>include/linux/pm_domain.h   |  8 ++++
>>>>2 files changed, 102 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>>>>index 37ab7f1..9af75ba 100644
>>>>--- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>>>>+++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>>>>@@ -1916,6 +1916,100 @@ out:
>>>>    return ret ? -EPROBE_DEFER : 0;
>>>>}
>>>>EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(genpd_dev_pm_attach);
>>>>+
>>>>+static const struct of_device_id idle_state_match[] = {
>>>>+    { .compatible = "arm,idle-state", },
>>>>+    { }
>>>>+};
>>>>+
>>>
>>>I still think it's better to have another compatible to serve this
>>>purpose. We don't want to end up creating genpd domains just because
>>>they are "arm,idle-state" compatible IMO ?
>>>
>>>I agree you can prevent it checking for OSC mode support in the
>>>firmware. But I want to understand if you have any strong reasons for
>>>avoiding that approach.
>>>
>>Why are you still held up with OSI/PC PSCI modes?
>
>I am just pointing that out to make sure you are not defining these
>DT bindings with just QCOM platform and OSC in consideration.
>
>I am thinking about how can it be used/extended in other use-cases.
>
>>I repeat again this
>>series is not about any of that, it is just about PM domains.
>
>I completely understand that, no argument on that. What I worry is that
>if a system(in future) represents this power domains and domain idles
>states and doesn't want to create a genpd, do we have to handle it
>differently or even the way your CPUidle series would do or can we say
>those states need to specify that they are compatible with the new
>feature(the one being added in this series) with a new compatible.
>I prefer the latter than the former to avoid all possible workarounds
>in future.
>
>>PM domains
>>have idle states and the idle-state description is similar in definition
>>to arm,idle-state and therefore uses the same compatible. There is no
>>point re-defining something that already exists in the kernel.
>>
>
>Yes I understand that but "arm,idle-states" were not defined with this
>feature in mind and hence I am bit worried if it could cause any issue
>especially if deprecate cpu-idle-states and move to this model
>completely. I really don't like this mix and hence I am raising the
>concern here. I am trying to ease that migration.
>
>>I was able to find the original thread, where we discussed this [1].
>>
>>I suggest, you read about PM domains and its idle states and understand
>>this series in the context of PM domains.
>>
>
>Sure, will do that. Thanks for pointing that out. But the concern I am
>raising is entirely different. I am asking if this re-use will cause any
>issue in future as pointed out above.
>
>I re-iterate that I understand this series is independent of the CPUIdle
>and hence asking why not make it completely independent by just adding
>the new compatible.
>
>I am *not asking to redefine something completely*. What I am saying is
>*just* to add new compatible that may(for cpu devices)/may not(for
>other/non-CPU devices) be used along with "arm,idle-state".
>
I am fine with that, as long as the compatible string is an alternate
for "arm,idle-state" it shouldn't be a problem.

Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Lina

>I may be too paranoid here but I think that's safer. It helps to skip
>creating of genpd if required for some domains as I had explained before.
>
>-- 
>Regards,
>Sudeep