Thread (16 messages) 16 messages, 6 authors, 2021-06-18

Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: power: Introduce 'assigned-performance-states' property

From: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
Date: 2021-06-01 11:13:00
Also in: linux-arm-msm, linux-pm, lkml

Hi,

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 11:42:27AM +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
While most devices within power-domains which support performance states,
scale the performance state dynamically, some devices might want to
set a static/default performance state while the device is active.
These devices typically would also run off a fixed clock and not support
dynamically scaling the device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques.
Add a property 'assigned-performance-states' which client devices can
use to set this default performance state on their power-domains.

Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml    | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
index aed51e9..88cebf2 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
@@ -66,6 +66,19 @@ properties:
       by the given provider should be subdomains of the domain specified
       by this binding.
 
+  assigned-performance-states:
+    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
+    description:
+       Some devices might need to configure their power domains in a default
+       performance state while the device is active. These devices typically
+       would also run off a fixed clock and not support dynamically scaling the
+       device's performance, also known as DVFS techniques. The list of performance
+       state values should correspond to the list of power domains specified as part
+       of the power-domains property. Each cell corresponds to one power-domain.
+       A value of 0 can be used for power-domains with no performance state
+       requirement. In case the power-domains have OPP tables associated, the values
+       here would typically match with one of the entries in the OPP table.
+
Is it just me or is this actually in the wrong place here?
Given that #power-domain-cells is required this looks like the bindings
for power domain providers, not consumers. :)

It looks like the consumer bindings are still in
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 required:
   - "#power-domain-cells"
 
@@ -131,3 +144,40 @@ examples:
             min-residency-us = <7000>;
         };
     };
+
+  - |
+    parent4: power-controller@12340000 {
+        compatible = "foo,power-controller";
+        reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
+        #power-domain-cells = <0>;
+    };
+
+    parent5: power-controller@43210000 {
+        compatible = "foo,power-controller";
+        reg = <0x43210000 0x1000>;
+        #power-domain-cells = <0>;
+        operating-points-v2 = <&power_opp_table>;
+
+        power_opp_table: opp-table {
+            compatible = "operating-points-v2";
+
+            power_opp_low: opp1 {
+                opp-level = <16>;
+            };
+
+            rpmpd_opp_ret: opp2 {
+                opp-level = <64>;
+            };
+
+            rpmpd_opp_svs: opp3 {
+                opp-level = <256>;
+            };
+        };
+    };
+
+    child4: consumer@12341000 {
+        compatible = "foo,consumer";
+        reg = <0x12341000 0x1000>;
+        power-domains = <&parent4>, <&parent5>;
+        assigned-performance-states = <0>, <256>;
+    };
Bjorn already asked this in v1 [1]:
May I ask how this is different from saying something like:

	required-opps = <&??>, <&rpmpd_opp_svs>;
and maybe this was already discussed further elsewhere. But I think at
the very least we need some clarification in the commit message + the
binding documentation how your new property relates to the existing
"required-opps" binding.

Because even if it might not be implemented at the moment,
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt actually also
specifies "required-opps" for device nodes e.g. with the following example:

	leaky-device0@12350000 {
		compatible = "foo,i-leak-current";
		reg = <0x12350000 0x1000>;
		power-domains = <&power 0>;
		required-opps = <&domain0_opp_0>;
	};

It looks like Viresh added that in commit e856f078bcf1
("OPP: Introduce "required-opp" property").

And in general I think it's a bit inconsistent that we usually refer to
performance states with phandles into the OPP table, but the
assigned-performance-states suddenly use "raw numbers".

Stephan

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/YAG%2FpNXQOS+C2zLr@builder.lan/ (local)
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help