Re: [RFC 1/2] pwrseq: Add subsystem to handle complex power sequences

Hans de Goede
2014-06-20T07:28:32Z

Hi,

On 06/19/2014 07:18 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:04 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
>> The pwrseq subsystem handles complex power sequences, typically useful
>> for subsystems that makes use of discoverable buses, like for example
>> MMC and I2C.
>>
>> The pwrseq subsystem is dependant on CONFIG_OF to be able to parse a DT
>> childnode to find out what power sequence method to bind for a device.
>>
>> From the DT childnode, the pwrseq DT parser tries to locate a
>> "power-method" property, which string is matched towards the list of
>> supported pwrseq methods.
>>
>> Each pwrseq method implements it's own power sequence and interfaces
>> the pwrseq core through a few callback functions.
>>
>> To instantiate a pwrseq method, clients shall use the devm_pwrseq_get()
>> API. If needed, clients can explicity drop the references to a pwrseq
>> method using devm_pwrseq_put() API.
>>
>> Besides instantiation, the pwrseq API provides clients opportunity to
>> select a certain power state. In this intial version, PWRSEQ_POWER_ON
>> and PWRSEQ_POWER_OFF are supported. Those are also mandatory for each
>> pwrseq method to support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/pwrseq/pwrseq.txt | 48 ++++++
>> drivers/Makefile | 2 +-
>> drivers/pwrseq/Makefile | 2 +
>> drivers/pwrseq/core.c | 175 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/pwrseq/core.h | 37 +++++
>> drivers/pwrseq/method.c | 38 +++++
>> include/linux/pwrseq.h | 50 ++++++
>> 7 files changed, 351 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwrseq/pwrseq.txt
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwrseq/Makefile
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwrseq/core.c
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwrseq/core.h
>> create mode 100644 drivers/pwrseq/method.c
>> create mode 100644 include/linux/pwrseq.h
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwrseq/pwrseq.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwrseq/pwrseq.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..80848ae
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pwrseq/pwrseq.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
>> +Power sequence DT bindings
>> +
>> +Each power sequence method has a corresponding "power-method" property string.
>> +This property shall be set in a subnode for a device. That subnode should also
>> +describe resourses which are specific to that power method.
>> +
>> +Do note, power sequences as such isn't encoded through DT. Instead those are
>> +implemented by each power method.
>> +
>> +Required subnode properties:
>> +- power-method: should contain the string for the power method to bind.
>> +
>> + Supported power methods: None.
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +Note, the "clock" power method in this example isn't actually supported, but
>> +used to visualize how a childnode could be described.
>> +
>> +// WLAN SDIO channel
>> +sdi1_per2@80118000 {
>> + compatible = "arm,pl18x", "arm,primecell";
>> + reg = <0x80118000 0x1000>;
>> + interrupts = <0 50 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> +
>> + dmas = <&dma 32 0 0x2>, /* Logical - DevToMem */
>> + <&dma 32 0 0x0>; /* Logical - MemToDev */
>> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
>> +
>> + clocks = <&prcc_kclk 2 4>, <&prcc_pclk 2 6>;
>> + clock-names = "sdi", "apb_pclk";
>> +
>> + arm,primecell-periphid = <0x10480180>;
>> + max-frequency = <100000000>;
>> + bus-width = <4>;
>> + non-removable;
>> + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&sdi1_default_mode>;
>> + pinctrl-1 = <&sdi1_sleep_mode>;
>> +
>> + status = "okay";
>> +
>> + pwrseq: pwrseq1 {
>> + power-method = "clock";
>> + clocks = <&someclk 1 2>, <&someclk 3 4>;
>> + clock-names = "pwrseq1", "pwrseq2";
>> + };
>
> I am strongly against the subnode approach as a general framework. We
> don't have a subnode for interrupts, nor for clocks or pinctrl. So why
> should we have it for the power sequencing?
>
> Sure, that fits the linux driver model better, but that's irrelevant
> w.r.t. describing the hardware.

Actually this is about describing the hardware, when you have e.g. an
mmc device which needs pwrseq, there will be 2 sets of certain
resources, ie clocks for the host controller and clocks going directly
to the mmc device. I think putting those both in the same subnode is
a BAD idea, so we really do need a subnode to group the pwrseq resources
together.

Regards,

Hans