Re: [PATCHv1 4/8] arm64: dts: qcom: msm8916: Use more generic idle state names

Amit Kucheria
2019-05-21T05:38:23Z

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:33 PM Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 03:43:19PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:42 PM Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 04:59:42PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > > Instead of using Qualcomm-specific terminology, use generic node names
> > > > for the idle states that are easier to understand. Move the description
> > > > into the "idle-state-name" property.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi | 11 ++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > index ded1052e5693..400b609bb3fd 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/msm8916.dtsi
> > > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
> > > > reg = <0x0>;
> > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@
> > > > reg = <0x1>;
> > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@
> > > > reg = <0x2>;
> > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@
> > > > reg = <0x3>;
> > > > next-level-cache = <&L2_0>;
> > > > enable-method = "psci";
> > > > - cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SPC>;
> > > > + cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP_0>;
> > > > clocks = <&apcs>;
> > > > operating-points-v2 = <&cpu_opp_table>;
> > > > #cooling-cells = <2>;
> > > > @@ -160,8 +160,9 @@
> > > > idle-states {
> > > > entry-method="psci";
> > >
> > > Please add a space before and after "=".
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - CPU_SPC: spc {
> > > > + CPU_SLEEP_0: cpu-sleep-0 {
> > >
> > > While I like your idea of using power state names from
> > > Server Base System Architecture document (SBSA) where applicable,
> > > does each qcom power state have a matching state in SBSA?
> > >
> > > These are the qcom power states:
> > > https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/kernel/msm-4.4/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/lpm-levels.txt?h=msm-4.4#n53
> > >
> > > Note that qcom defines:
> > > "wfi", "retention", "gdhs", "pc", "fpc"
> > > while SBSA simply defines "idle_standby" (aka wfi), "idle_retention", "sleep".
> > >
> > > Unless you know the equivalent name for each qcom power state
> > > (perhaps several qcom power states are really the same SBSA state?),
> > > I think that you should omit the renaming from this patch series.
> >
> > That is what SLEEP_0, SLEEP_1, SLEEP_2 could be used for.
>
> Ok, sounds good to me.
>
> >
> > IOW, all these qcom definitions are nicely represented in the
> > state-name and we could simply stick to SLEEP_0, SLEEP_1 for the node
> > names. There is wide variability in the the names of the qcom idle
> > states across SoC families downstream, so I'd argue against using
> > those for the node names.
> >
> > Just for cpu states (non-wfi) I see the use of the following names
> > downstream across families. The C<num> seems to come from x86
> > world[1]:
> >
> > - C4, standalone power collapse (spc)
> > - C4, power collapse (fpc)
> > - C2D, retention
> > - C3, power collapse (pc)
> > - C4, rail power collapse (rail-pc)
> >
> > [1] https://www.hardwaresecrets.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-cpu-c-states-power-saving-modes/
>
> Indeed, there seems to be mixed names used, I've also seen "fpc-def".
>
> So, you have convinced me.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Niklas

Can I take that as a Reviewed-by?