Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power
From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Thu Feb 23 2017 - 10:27:06 EST
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 22/02/17 13:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 22/02/17 01:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:45:13 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>> Geert, so far you have failed to explain what's different from the new
>>> state you are adding and the existing s2idle.
>> I did explain, cfr.:
>> 1. The power consumption figures in the cover letter:
>> - shallow: 8.4 W 6.2 W (secondary CPU cores off)
> That's because your CPU_SUSPEND implementation is incomplete. You can
> enter the same state as secondary CPU core off even with idle. It's just
> that we can save by not entering and exiting the CPU hotplug state
> machine. So this "shallow" state can be achieved if your CPU_SUSPEND
> implements that state.
Does that include power areas?
>> 2. The description for patch 3/6:
>> As secondary CPU cores are taken offline, "shallow" suspend mode saves
>> slightly more power than "s2idle", but less than "deep" suspend mode.
>> However, unlike "deep" suspend mode, "shallow" suspend mode can be used
>> regardless of the presence of support for PSCI_SYSTEM_SUSPEND, which is
>> an optional API in PSCI v1.0.
> Yes I understood that, you need to add an extra idle states to get that
> shallow state. We have discussed this in past to depth. On ARM64/PSCI,
> we will that support "shallow" system suspend mode which can't be
> defined generically. Also we can support this shallow state with s2idle.
> Your system probably not supporting all the CPU idle states. E.g.: it
> may just support CPU ON/OFF/RET and not cluster ON/OFF/RET. Please add
> that state to CPU_SUSPEND implementation in the firmware.
I can find CPU_ON and CPU_OFF in the PSCI specification, but not
How is the cluster ON/OFF/RET called exactly? I can't find any CLUSTER_*
calls in the PSCI specification.
>From a quick glance in the PSCI sources, there's some support for powering
>> Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear. Let's summarize:
>> 1. On Renesas R-Car Gen3 platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND is implemented,
> OK got that.
>> 2. On these platforms, PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND powers down the SoC, and supports
>> wake-up from PMIC only,
>> 3. If the user wants to use a different wake-up source, these other
>> wake-up sources fail to wake up the system from PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND.
> In that case don't enter PSCI SYSTEM_SUSPEND
Or prevent the system from doing that...
>> 4. Patch 3/6 adds a new "shallow" state, as it allows to save more
>> power (the difference may be due to suboptimal cpuidle platform support on R-Car Gen3, though),
> Why can't you do that in s2idle mode. Please give me the difference
> between your shallow state and s2idle state, not just power numbers
> but the actual state of CPUs and the devices in the system.
>From the Linux side, there's not much difference, except that the secondary
CPU cores are disabled. As that is handled by PSCI, the difference may be
in the PSCI implementation. I will have to check that...
On these SoCs, the individual CPU cores and the SCU/L2 are in separate
(nested) power areas. Perhaps these power areas are turned off when
disabling the CPU cores, but not when suspending them.
>> E.g. on non-PSCI platforms with an Ethernet driver that supports
>> Wake-on-LAN, I can do:
>> ethtool -s eth0 wol g
>> echo mem > /sys/power/state
>> and be sure that the system can be woken up by sending a WoL MagicPacket.
> Still possible with s2idle if CPU_SUSPEND is correctly implemented by
> the platform.
Sure. But not automatic, as it needs fiddling with mem_sleep.
>> On PSCI systems, the above may work, or may not work. And there's no way to
>> find out (in an automated way) whether it will work or not.
>> If it doesn't work, the user has to configure his system (manually) to
>> not use "mem" state.
>> Since v4.10-rc1, that can be done using e.g.
>> echo s2idle > /sys/power/mem_sleep
>> and my patches make that automatic (for a new "shallow" state instead
>> of "s2idle", though).
> How is that ? If "deep" is available as in your case too, why will
> shallow become default. IIUC the user still have to write "shallow"
> to mem_sleep.
After patch 4, if needed (DT property + extra wake-up sources configured),
psci_system_suspend_enter() will call cpu_do_idle() instead of
psci_system_suspend(). No need to fiddle with mem_sleep manually.
> Does this platform use generic arm64 DT cpuidle driver ? I don't see so
> from the DT.
I think that task isn't complete yet.
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds