Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] PM / Domains: Add GENPD_FLAG_NO_SUSPEND/RESUME flags

[Ulf Hansson]

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 09:23, Sibi Sankar <sibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-25 23:23, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Tue 25 Aug 02:20 CDT 2020, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2020-08-24 09:42:12)
> >> > On Fri 21 Aug 14:41 PDT 2020, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > [..]
> >> > > I find it odd that this is modeled as a power domain instead of some
> >> > > Qualcomm specific message that the remoteproc driver sends to AOSS. Is
> >> > > there some sort of benefit the driver gets from using the power domain
> >> > > APIs for this vs. using a custom API?
> >> >
> >> > We need to send "up" and "down" notifications and this needs to happen
> >> > at the same time as other standard resources are enabled/disabled.
> >> >
> >> > Further more, at the time the all resources handled by the downstream
> >> > driver was either power-domains (per above understanding) or clocks, so
> >> > it made sense to me not to spin up a custom API.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So the benefit is not spinning up a custom API? I'm not Ulf, but it
> >> looks like this is hard to rationalize about as a power domain. It
> >> doesn't have any benefit to model it this way besides to make it
> >> possible to turn on with other power domains.
> >>
> >> This modem remoteproc drivers isn't SoC agnostic anyway, it relies on
> >> SMEM APIs, so standing up another small qmp_remoteproc_booted() and
> >> qmp_remoteproc_shutdown() API would avoid adding a genpd flag here
> >> that
> >> probably will never be used outside of this corner-case. There is also
> >> some get/put EPROBE_DEFER sort of logic to implement, but otherwise it
> >> would be possible to do this outside of power domains, and that seems
> >> better given that this isn't really a power domain to start with.
> >
> > In later platforms a few new users of the AOSS communication interface
> > is introduced that certainly doesn't fit any existing API/framework in
> > the kernel. So the plan was to pretty much expose qmp_send() to these
> > drivers.
> >
> > My worry with using this interface is that we'll probably have to come
> > up with some DT binding pieces and probably we'll end up adding yet
> > another piece of hard coded information in the remoteproc drivers.
> >
> > But I'm not against us doing this work in favor of not having to
> > introduce a one-off for this corner case.
>
> Bjorn/Stephen,
>
> So the consensus is to stop modelling
> aoss load_state as pds and expose qmp_send
> to drivers?

Would that mean qmp_send would have to be called from generic drivers?
Then, please no. We want to keep drivers portable.

Kind regards
Uffe