+Sibi who wrote the code
Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-08-05 13:24:06)
On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:36 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why is the genpd being powered off at all? It looks like the driver is
> written in a way that it doesn't expect this to happen. See where
> adsp_pds_disable() is called from. Looks like the remoteproc "stop"
> callback should be called or the driver should be detached.
> It sort of looks like the genpd is expected to be at the max level all
> the time (it sets INT_MAX in adsp_pds_enable(), cool).
In general in Linux there are some things that, at suspend time, get
done behind a driver's back. The regulator API, for instance, allows
for regulators to be turned off in suspend even if a driver leaves
them on. Sure, it's good practice for a driver to be explicit but the
regulator suspend states do allow for the more heavy-handed approach.
I guess I assume that genpd is a bit similar. If a driver leaves a
genpd on all the time then it will still be turned off at suspend time
and then turned back on at resume time. It seems like it must be part
of the genpd API. Specifically genpd_sync_power_off() says: "Check if
the given PM domain can be powered off (during system suspend or
hibernation) and do that if so." That makes it seem like it's how
Reading all the descriptions of things like GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON,
GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP, GENPD_FLAG_RPM_ALWAYS_ON makes me even more
convinced that it's normal (unless otherwise specified) for genpds to
get turned off in suspend even if a driver just blindly left them on.
Presumably if this "modem" genpd is supposed to stay on in suspend
time it should have been marked "always on"? I'd guess we'd need to
add "GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON" in some (or all?) cases in qmp_pd_add() if
this was true?
Agreed. I can't read the mind of Sibi so I can only guess that Sibi
wasn't expecting this behavior by reading the driver structure. That
could be a wrong assumption.
> Maybe we need to
> add some sort of suspend hooks to the remote proc driver instead? Where
> those suspend hooks are called earlier and drop the genpd performance
> state request but otherwise leave it enabled across suspend?
I think you're saying:
a) You think it's a bug today that the "modem" genpd is being powered
off in suspend. Any evidence to back this up?
b) Assuming it's a bug today, we should mark the "modem" as
c) If there are genpds that sometimes should be left on in suspend but
sometimes not (and that doesn't match up with what
GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP does), then we'd have to pass
GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON as a flag and then add suspend hooks to make the
decision for us.
Did I understand that correctly?
...or are you suggesting that we work around the fact that
qmp_pd_power_off() can't be called at "noirq" time by forcing it to
...or am I just totally confused and you meant something else?
> I know this isn't clearing the land mine that is calling this code from
> noirq phase of suspend, but I'm just looking at the driver and thinking
> that it never expected to be called from this phase of suspend to begin
You're saying that qmp_pd_power_off() wasn't expecting to be called
from the noirq phase of suspend? Sure, I guess not given the bug.
...but once we fix the bug, it works fine, doesn't it? ...and it
appears that it's part of the genpd API to be able to be called from
the noirq phase. To me that means that, even if we were supposed to
be keeping this particular PD on during suspend we should take my
So the summary is: I still think my patch is correct, but I could
certainly still be convinced otherwise.
I'm trying to say that the driver looks like it expects to power off the
genpd in the adsp_stop() callback. That same callback sends some sort of
message to the modem saying that it is being stopped (see
qcom_q6v5_request_stop()). Turning the performance state down, or
turning the power domain off completely, without telling the modem that
it's happening like as is done in adsp_stop() looks wrong. But who
knows, maybe the modem is happy with that and doesn't care?
In general, the whole thing looks weird to me because I would expect the
modem to take care of its own power requirements, including this
"load_state" one. Anyway, I hope Sibi can clarify what's going on.