Re: [PATCH v10 16/27] drivers: firmware: psci: Prepare to use OS initiated suspend mode

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 20/12/2018 16:41, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 15:09, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/11/2018 18:46, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> To enable the OS initiated mode, the CPU topology needs to be described
>>> using the hierarchical model in DT. When used, the idle state bits for the
>>> CPU are created by ORing the bits for PM domain's idle state.
>>>
>>> Let's prepare the PSCI driver to deal with this, via introducing a per CPU
>>> variable called domain_state and by adding internal helpers to read/write
>>> the value of the variable.
>>
>> What are the domain states ? What values can they have ?
> 
> The existing psci_power_state, also defined as a per cpu variable,
> contains fixed values reflecting the corresponding
> arm,psci-suspend-param for the idle state in question.
> 
> This isn't sufficient, when using the hierarchical CPU topology in DT
> and when OSI mode is supported, because of the way we vote with the
> PSCI CPU suspend parameter. Parts of this parameter shall inform about
> what state to allow for the cluster, while other parts tells the state
> for the CPU.
> 
> The new "domain states" per CPU variable, gets dynamically changed
> when actively used by following patches that implements the PSCI PM
> domain support. Depending on what state the PM domain picks, the genpd
> ->power_off() callback sets a new "domain states" value, reflecting
> the state for the cluster.
> 
> Does it makes sense? If you like, I can try to update the changelog to
> clarify this?

Yes, it makes sense. May be give a pointer or an information about the
parameter encoding in addition to the description above can help.


>>> Cc: Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Co-developed-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v10:
>>>       - Use __this_cpu_read|write() rather than this_cpu_read|write().
>>>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
>>> index 4f0cbc95e41b..8dbcdecc2ae4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/psci/psci.c
>>> @@ -87,8 +87,19 @@ static u32 psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_MAX];
>>>                               (PSCI_1_0_EXT_POWER_STATE_ID_MASK | \
>>>                               PSCI_1_0_EXT_POWER_STATE_TYPE_MASK)
>>>
>>> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u32, domain_state);
>>>  static u32 psci_cpu_suspend_feature;
>>>
>>> +static inline u32 psci_get_domain_state(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     return __this_cpu_read(domain_state);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline void psci_set_domain_state(u32 state)
>>> +{
>>> +     __this_cpu_write(domain_state, state);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  static inline bool psci_has_ext_power_state(void)
>>>  {
>>>       return psci_cpu_suspend_feature &
>>> @@ -187,6 +198,8 @@ static int psci_cpu_on(unsigned long cpuid, unsigned long entry_point)
>>>
>>>       fn = psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_CPU_ON];
>>>       err = invoke_psci_fn(fn, cpuid, entry_point, 0);
>>> +     /* Clear the domain state to start fresh. */
>>> +     psci_set_domain_state(0);
>>>       return psci_to_linux_errno(err);
>>
>> I think this change is ambiguous:
>>
>>  - if it is a change of the state because of the cpu_on, then I was
>> expecting a similar change in cpu_off and the change only if
>> invoke_psci_fn() succeeds.
> 
> You are right. This rather belongs to patch 24, as its intent is to
> deal with CPU hotplug.
> 
>>
>>  - if it is a change to take opportunity of the code path to initialize
>> the domain state, I suggest to remove it from there and make it very
>> explicit with static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u32, domain_state) = { 0 };
> 
> We shouldn't need to explicitly set static variables to zero, as that
> should be managed by the compiler.

Yeah, that was the purpose of the *very explicit* words, that is tell
the reader, the initialization relies on the static variables being set
to zero.

> Let me simply remove the call to  psci_set_domain_state(0) and instead
> consider it for patch 24.

Yes, sure.



-- 
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog