Re: [PATCH v2] opp: Power on (virtual) power domains managed by the OPP core

Viresh Kumar
2020-09-01T06:00:24Z

On 31-08-20, 17:49, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> I appreciate it, thank you! But actually after our discussion regarding
> the "manage multiple power domains which might not always need to be on"
> use case I would like to explore that a bit further before we decide on
> a final solution that complicates changes later.
>
> The reason I mention this is that after our discussion I have been
> (again) staring at the vendor implementation of CPU frequency scaling of
> the platform I'm working on (qcom msm8916). Actually there seems to be yet
> another power domain that is scaled only for some CPU frequencies within
> the clock driver. (The vendor driver implies this is a requirement of
> the PLL clock that is used for higher CPU frequencies, but not sure...)
>
> I don't fully understand how to implement this in mainline yet. I have
> started some research on these "voltage requirements" for clocks, and
> based on previous discussions [1] and patches [2] it seems like I'm
> *not* supposed to add this to the clock driver, but rather as another
> required-opp to the CPU OPP table.
>
> If that is the case, we would pretty much have a situation like you
> described, a power domain that should only be scaled for some of the
> OPPs (the higher CPU frequencies).
>
> But first I need to do some more research, and probably discuss how to
> handle that power domain separately first. I think it would be easier if
> we postpone this patch till then. I don't think anyone else needs this
> patch at the moment.

Heh, okay, I can keep it out of my tree then :)

> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/9439bd29e3ccd5424a8e9b464c8c7bd9@codeaurora.org/
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/20190320094918.20234-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org/
>
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
> > [ Viresh: Rearranged the code to remove extra loop and minor cleanup ]
>
> FWIW, the reason I put this into an extra loop is that the
> dev_pm_domain_attach_by_name() might return -EPROBE_DEFER (or some other
> error) for some of the power domains. If you create the device links
> before attaching all domains you might unnecessarily turn on+off some of
> them.

Hmm, but that shouldn't have any significant side affects, right ? And
shouldn't result in some other sort of error. It makes the code look
more sensible/readable and so I would prefer to keep a single loop if
it doesn't make something not-work.

> Having it in a separate loop avoids that, because we only start powering
> on the power domains when we know that all the power domains are
> available.

--
viresh