Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: Powerzone new bindings
From: Ulf Hansson <hidden>
Date: 2021-11-24 14:55:16
Also in:
linux-pm, lkml
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 13:55, Daniel Lezcano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
The proposed bindings are describing a set of powerzones. A power zone is the logical name for a component which is capable of power capping and where we can measure the power consumption. A power zone can aggregate several power zones in terms of power measurement and power limitations. That allows to apply power constraint to a group of components and let the system balance the allocated power in order to comply with the constraint. The ARM System Control and Management Interface (SCMI) can provide a power zone description. The powerzone semantic is also found on the Intel platform with the RAPL register. The Linux kernel powercap framework deals with the powerzones: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/power/powercap/powercap.html The powerzone can also represent a group of children powerzones, hence the description can result on a hierarchy. Such hierarchy already exists with the hardware or can be represented an computed from the kernel. The hierarchical description was initially proposed but not desired given there are other descriptions like the power domain proposing almost the same description. https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAL_JsqLuLcHj7525tTUmh7pLqe7T2j6UcznyhV7joS8ipyb_VQ@mail.gmail.com/ (local) The description gives the power constraint dependencies to apply on a specific group of logically or physically aggregated devices. They do not represent the physical location or the power domains of the SoC even if the description could be similar. Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Ulf Hansson <redacted> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <redacted> --- .../devicetree/bindings/power/powerzones.yaml | 95 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/powerzones.yamldiff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/powerzones.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/powerzones.yaml new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..1ae3f82ae29c --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/powerzones.yaml@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +%YAML 1.2 +--- +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/power/powerzones.yaml# +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# + +title: Power zones description + +maintainers: + - Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> + +description: |+ + + A System on Chip contains a multitude of active components and each + of them is a source of heat. Even if a temperature sensor is not + present, a source of heat can be controlled by acting on the + consumed power via different techniques. + + A powerzone describes a component or a group of components where we + can control the maximum power consumption. For instance, a group of + CPUs via the performance domain, a LCD screen via the brightness, + etc ... + + Different components when they are used together can significantly + increase the overall temperature, so the description needs to + reflect this dependency in order to assign a power budget for a + group of powerzones. + + This description is done via a hierarchy and the DT reflects it. It + does not represent the physical location or a topology, eg. on a + big.Little system, the little CPUs may not be represented as they do + not contribute significantly to the heat, however the GPU can be + tied with the big CPUs as they usually have a connection for + multimedia or game workloads. + +properties: + $nodename: + const: powerzones +
Do we really need a top-node like this? Can't that be left as a
platform/soc specific thing instead? Along the lines of how the last
example below looks like? Maybe we can have both options? I guess Rob
will tell us.
Moreover, maybe we should put some constraints on the names of
subnodes (provider nodes) with a "patternProperties". Something along
the lines of below.
patternProperties:
"^(powerzone)([@-].*)?$":
type: object
description:
Each node represents a powerzone.
+ "#powerzone-cells": + description: + Number of cells in powerzone specifier. Typically 0 for nodes + representing but it can be any number in the future to describe + parameters of the powerzone. + + powerzone:
Maybe "powerzones" instead of "powerzone". Unless we believe that we never need to allow multiple parent-zones for a child-zone.
+ description: + A phandle to a parent powerzone. If no powerzone attribute is set, the + described powerzone is the topmost in the hierarchy. +
We should probably state that the "#powerzone-cells" are required. Like below: required: - "#powerzone-cells" Moreover, we probably need to allow additional properties? At least it looks so from the last example below. Then: additionalProperties: true
+examples:
+ - |
+ powerzones {
+
+ SOC_PZ: soc {
+ };This looks odd to me. Why do we need an empty node? If this is the topmost power-zone, it should still have the #powerzone-cells specifier, I think.
+
+ PKG_PZ: pkg {As I stated above, I would prefer some kind of common pattern of the subnode names. Maybe "pkg-powerzone"?
+ #powerzone-cells = <0>;
+ powerzone = <&SOC_PZ>;
+ };
+
+ BIG_PZ: big {
+ #powerzone-cells = <0>;
+ powerzone = <&PKG_PZ>;
+ };
+
+ GPU_PZ: gpu {
+ #powerzone-cells = <0>;
+ powerzone = <&PKG_PZ>;
+ };
+
+ MULTIMEDIA_PZ: multimedia {
+ #powerzone-cells = <0>;
+ powerzone = <&SOC_PZ>;
+ };
+ };
+
+ - |
+ A57_0: big@0 {
+ compatible = "arm,cortex-a57";
+ reg = <0x0 0x0>;
+ device_type = "cpu";
+ #powerzone-cells = <0>;
+ powerzone = <&BIG_PZ>;Just to make sure I understand correctly. The big@0 node is a powerzone provider too? Or did you mean to specify it as a consumer?
+ };
+
+ A57_1: big@1 {
+ compatible = "arm,cortex-a57";
+ reg = <0x0 0x0>;
+ device_type = "cpu";
+ #powerzone-cells = <0>;
+ powerzone = <&BIG_PZ>;
+ };Kind regards Uffe