On 10 November 2016 at 20:56, Dave Gerlach [off-list ref] wrote:

Rob, Ulf, Jon,

On 10/27/2016 08:15 AM, Dave Gerlach wrote:

quoted

+Jon
On 10/26/2016 04:59 PM, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Kevin Hilman [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Dave Gerlach [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Hi,
On 10/21/2016 01:48 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

Dave Gerlach [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Add a generic power domain implementation, TI SCI PM Domains, that
will hook into the genpd framework and allow the TI SCI protocol to
control device power states.

Also, provide macros representing each device index as understood
by TI SCI to be used in the device node power-domain references.
These are identifiers for the K2G devices managed by the PMMC.

Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/sci-pm-domain.txt   | 54
+++++++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                        |  2 +
 include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h                    | 90
++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 146 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/sci-pm-domain.txt
 create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h

diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/sci-pm-domain.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/sci-pm-domain.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..32f38a349656

--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti/sci-pm-domain.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+Texas Instruments TI-SCI Generic Power Domain
+---------------------------------------------
+
+Some TI SoCs contain a system controller (like the PMMC, etc...)

that is
+responsible for controlling the state of the IPs that are present.
+Communication between the host processor running an OS and the
system
+controller happens through a protocol known as TI-SCI [1]. This pm
domain
+implementation plugs into the generic pm domain framework and makes
use of
+the TI SCI protocol power on and off each device when needed.
+
+[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/keystone/ti,sci.txt
+
+PM Domain Node
+==============
+The PM domain node represents the global PM domain managed by the
PMMC,
+which in this case is the single implementation as documented by the
generic
+PM domain bindings in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt.
+
+Required Properties:
+--------------------
+- compatible: should be "ti,sci-pm-domain"
+- #power-domain-cells: Must be 0.
+- ti,sci: Phandle to the TI SCI device to use for managing the
devices.

+Example:
+--------------------
+k2g_pds: k2g_pds {

should use generic name like "power-contoller", e.g. k2g_pds:
power-controller

Ok, that makes more sense.

quoted

quoted

+        compatible = "ti,sci-pm-domain";
+        #power-domain-cells = <0>;
+        ti,sci = <&pmmc>;
+};
+
+PM Domain Consumers
+===================
+Hardware blocks that require SCI control over their state must
provide
+a reference to the sci-pm-domain they are part of and a unique
device
+specific ID that identifies the device.
+
+Required Properties:
+--------------------
+- power-domains: phandle pointing to the corresponding PM domain
node.
+- ti,sci-id: index representing the device id to be passed oevr SCI
to
+        be used for device control.

This ID doesn't look right.

Why not use #power-domain-cells = <1> and pass the index in the DT?
...

Exactly. ti,sci-id is a NAK for me.

I was told not to use the onecell during v1 discussion. I agree this would
be
ideal but I cannot due to what the bindings represent, the phandle
parameter is
an index into a list of genpds, whereas we need an actual ID number we can
use
and I do not have the ability to get that from the phandle.

@Ulf/Jon, is there any hope of bringing back custom xlate functions for
genpd
providers? I don't have a good background on why it was even removed. I
can
maintain a single genpd for all devices but I need a way to parse this ID,
whether it's from a separate property or a phandle. It is locked now to
indexing
into a list of genpds but I need additional per device information for
devices
bound to a genpd and I need either a custom parameter or the ability to
parse
the phandle myself.

Any comments here? The meaning of the phandle onecell is fixed in the genpd
framework so I'm not sure how we want to move forward with this, I need to
pass a power domain ID to the genpd driver, and if this shouldn't be a new
property I'm not sure what direction we should take.

Regards,
Dave

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+See dt-bindings/genpd/k2g.h for the list of valid identifiers for
k2g.
+
+Example:
+--------------------
+uart0: serial at 02530c00 {
+   compatible = "ns16550a";
+   ...
+   power-domains = <&k2g_pds>;
+   ti,sci-id = <K2G_DEV_UART0>;

... like this:

     power-domains = <&k2g_pds K2G_DEV_UART0>;

That's how I did it in version one actually. I was able to define my
own xlate function to parse the phandle and get that index, but Ulf
pointed me to this series by Jon Hunter [1] that simplified genpd
providers and dropped the concept of adding your own xlate. This locks
the onecell approach to using a fixed static array of genpds that get
indexed into (without passing the index to the provider, just the
genpd that's looked up), which doesn't fit our usecase, as we don't
want a 1 to 1 genpd to device mapping based on the comments provided
in v1. Now we just use the genpd device attach/detach hooks to parse
the sci-id and then use it in the genpd device start/stop hooks.

I have no idea what any of this means. All sounds like driver
architecture, not anything to do with bindings.

This was a response to Kevin, not part of binding description.

quoted

quoted

Ah, right.  I remember now.  This approach allows you to use a single
genpd as discussed earlier.

Makes sense now, suggestion retracted.

IIRC, the bindings in Jon's case had a node for each domain and didn't
need any additional property.

Yes but we only have one domain and index into it, not into a list of
domains,

Exactly. And this my main point as well. We are not talking about a
domain property but a device property.

quoted

so the additional property is solving a different problem.

Yes.

Perhaps you could try to elaborate about what the TI SCI ID really
represents for the device, as to help Rob understand the bigger
picture?

To me, the TI SCI ID, is similar to a "conid" for any another "device
resource" (like clock, pinctrl, regulator etc) which we can describe
in DT and assign to a device node. The only difference here, is that
we don't have common API to fetch the resource (like clk_get(),
regulator_get()), but instead we fetches the device's resource from
SoC specific code, via genpd's device ->attach() callback.

Hope that helps.

Kind regards
Uffe