From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932799AbeEaDyG (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2018 23:54:06 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:40014 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932672AbeEaDx7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 May 2018 23:53:59 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org B988C603D2 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=rnayak@codeaurora.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] soc: qcom: rpmpd: Add a powerdomain driver to model corners To: David Collins , Ulf Hansson Cc: Viresh Kumar , Stephen Boyd , Andy Gross , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20180525100121.28214-1-rnayak@codeaurora.org> <20180525100121.28214-2-rnayak@codeaurora.org> <0e07d577-9728-e97a-2da0-dd7dd324f058@codeaurora.org> <7432f626-69cd-3535-04bc-de42e0285d41@codeaurora.org> From: Rajendra Nayak Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 09:23:53 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7432f626-69cd-3535-04bc-de42e0285d41@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, On 05/30/2018 11:57 PM, David Collins wrote: > Hello Rajendra, > > On 05/30/2018 03:14 AM, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> On 05/30/2018 02:47 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 25 May 2018 at 12:01, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > ... >>>> + pm_genpd_init(&rpmpds[i]->pd, NULL, true); >>> >>> Question: Is there no hierarchical topology of the PM domains. No >>> genpd subdomains? >> >> The hierarchy if any is all handled by the remote core (RPM in this case). >> For Linux its just a flat view. > > There is one special case that we'll need to handle somehow. The APPS > vlvl request for VDD_MX needs to be greater than or equal to the vlvl > request for VDD_CX. Can you please add the necessary code to achieve > this? RPMh hardware doesn't handle this hardware requirement due to > concerns about modem use case latency. Sure, I'll take a look at it. > > Please note that this is handled in a somewhat hacky manner [1] with the > downstream rpmh-regulator driver by specifying VDD_MX as the parent of > VDD_CX and VDD_MX_AO as the parent of VDD_CX_AO with a dropout voltage of > -1. That way, enabling CX causes MX to be enabled and voltage level > requests are propagated from CX to MX (the -1 is ignored because it is > rounded up within the sparse vlvl numbering space). I can't see how else to handle this but with a fake parent/child relation, which also means we might need support to propagate performance states for power domains up the parents, which I think was initially supported but later dropped since we thought this wasn't needed for now. We might need to take a re-look at it to support this usecase. thanks, Rajendra -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation