Linux Power Management development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
To: "Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>,
	"Stefan Wahren" <wahrenst@gmx.net>,
	"Ulf Hansson" <ulfh@kernel.org>,
	"Broadcom internal kernel review list"
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
	"Ray Jui" <rjui@broadcom.com>,
	"Scott Branden" <sbranden@broadcom.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel-dev@igalia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pmdomain: bcm: bcm2835-power: Raise ASB poll timeout to 100us
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2026 22:13:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f37b826-b760-4735-bc33-e1f167729d52@broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4af63689-e08c-406e-9ec3-f56dcbfb6f91@igalia.com>



On 6/19/2026 2:57 PM, Maíra Canal wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 31/05/26 09:18, Maíra Canal wrote:
>> Hi Stefan,
>>
>> On 31/05/26 07:41, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>> Hi Maíra,
>>>
>>> Am 30.05.26 um 22:46 schrieb Maíra Canal:
>>>> Commit 18605b1b936b ("pmdomain: bcm: bcm2835-power: Increase ASB 
>>>> control
>>>> timeout") raised the ASB handshake polling budget from 1us to 5us.
>>>> Surveying the pmdomain subsystem, 5us is still one of the smallest 
>>>> polling
>>>> budgets by a wide margin. Comparable handshakes in other drivers use:
>>>>
>>>>    - 100us : starfive jh71xx-pmu, apple pmgr-pwrstate
>>>>    - 1ms   : renesas rcar-sysc, rmobile-sysc (power-on)
>>>>    - 10ms  : renesas rcar-gen4-sysc, sunxi sun55i-pck600
>>>>    - 1s    : mediatek mtk-pm-domains, mtk-scpsys
>>>>
>>>> Raise the BCM2835 timeout to 100us, matching analogous drivers. 
>>>> 100us is
>>>> still negligible relative to a power-domain transition and gives the 
>>>> V3D
>>>> master ASB substantially more headroom to drain under heavy workloads,
>>>> assuring us that the timeout is enough for any scenario.
>>> tbh I'm not convinced by this explanation. Starting with a timeout 
>>> comparison across different pmdomain driver looks strange to me.
>>>
>>> My expectation that the reason for such a patch is that there is some 
>>> kind of scenario to trigger unexpected timeouts.
>>> If this is the case, please provide more information about the 
>>> scenario (specific platform, scenario, link to the bug report).
>>
>> The context: I was debugging this issue [1] and initially I had the
>> intuition that it could be related to a timeout in the ASB polling loop.
>> As I don't have access to the BCM2835 SoC datasheet (the public one
>> doesn't have PM information), I started to check other driver's
>> handshake timeout to see if ours was comparable to similar drivers. As
>> you can see, our timeout is much smaller.
>>
>> In the end, issue [1] wasn't related to the pmdomain driver, so I don't
>> have a specific scenario to trigger this issue. Even though, I sent this
>> patch considering the comparison to other drivers with the goal to be
>> conservative and use a larger timeout that could accommodate an extreme
>> scenario. However, if you believe it's unreasonable, I'm okay dropping
>> this patch.
>>
>> Ideally, it would be great to have information from Broadcom on what's
>> the largest possible time required to perform a power transition. Maybe
>> Florian could help us with that?
>>
> 
> Gentle ping, any ideas about this?

I think it's reasonable in the sense that if there is a lot of traffic 
posted on the AXI asynchronous bridge it will take longer for the 
acknowledgement to come, I asked the designers whether 100us is 
reasonable or not and will get back to you as soon as I get an answer.
-- 
Florian


      reply	other threads:[~2026-06-21 20:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-05-30 20:46 [PATCH] pmdomain: bcm: bcm2835-power: Raise ASB poll timeout to 100us Maíra Canal
2026-05-31 10:41 ` Stefan Wahren
2026-05-31 12:18   ` Maíra Canal
2026-06-19 13:57     ` Maíra Canal
2026-06-21 20:13       ` Florian Fainelli [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=2f37b826-b760-4735-bc33-e1f167729d52@broadcom.com \
    --to=florian.fainelli@broadcom.com \
    --cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
    --cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mcanal@igalia.com \
    --cc=rjui@broadcom.com \
    --cc=sbranden@broadcom.com \
    --cc=ulfh@kernel.org \
    --cc=wahrenst@gmx.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox