[PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Disable the not yet supported cluster idle state

From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
To: Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>
Cc: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	Maulik Shah <quic_mkshah@quicinc.com>,
	Rajendra Nayak <quic_rjendra@quicinc.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Disable the not yet supported cluster idle state
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 13:57:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221027115745.240516-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> (raw)

To support the deeper cluster idle state for sm8250 platforms, some
additional synchronization is needed between the rpmh-rsc device and the
CPU cluster PM domain. Until that is supported, let's disable the cluster
idle state.

This fixes a problem that has been reported for the Qcom RB5 platform (see
below), but most likely other sm8250 platforms suffers from similar issues,
so let's make the fix generic for sm8250.

vreg_l11c_3p3: failed to enable: -ETIMEDOUT
qcom-rpmh-regulator 18200000.rsc:pm8150l-rpmh-regulators: ldo11: devm_regulator_register() failed, ret=-110
qcom-rpmh-regulator: probe of 18200000.rsc:pm8150l-rpmh-regulators failed with error -110

Reported-by: Amit Pundir <amit.pundir@linaro.org>
Fixes: 32bc936d7321 ("arm64: dts: qcom: sm8250: Add cpuidle states")
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
---

This problem was reported by Amit [1] together with an attempt to fix it. It
turned, that we wanted a more generic fix, hence I posted $subject patch.

Also note that, $subject patch is also depending (from functionality point of
view) on a another for genpd [2]. Although, that should soon reach v6.1-rc[n] and
stable kernels. 

Bjorn, can you pick this up as a fix for v6.1-rc and tag it for stable kernels?

Kind regards
Ulf Hansson

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20221018145348.4051809-1-amit.pundir@linaro.org/
[2]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAJZ5v0hJxRiL03XDFpU8FuabsHn5i6JMksJ=dfj8B+Dm=s3LYA@mail.gmail.com/

---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
index a5b62cadb129..e276eed1f8e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8250.dtsi
@@ -334,6 +334,7 @@ CLUSTER_SLEEP_0: cluster-sleep-0 {
 				exit-latency-us = <6562>;
 				min-residency-us = <9987>;
 				local-timer-stop;
+				status = "disabled";
 			};
 		};
 	};
-- 
2.34.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
