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)