Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] soc: rockchip: power-domain: Manage resource conflicts with firmware

[Chanwoo Choi]

Hi Brian,

On 22. 4. 9. 12:34, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Chanwoo,
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 9:38 PM Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Instead of adding the specific function for only rockchip,
> > how about adding new function pointer (like block/unblock or start/stop and others)
> > into 'struct generic_pm_domain'? And add new pm_genpd_* function
> > to control the power domain.
>
> I suppose that is technically possible, but I'm not sure it makes a
> ton of sense.
>
> First, genpd doesn't seem to typically expose operations directly to
> client device drivers. It's mostly about abstract handling of the
> dependencies of "how do I power on this device?" behind the scenes of
> things like pm_runtime_*(). I guess maybe something like
> dev_pm_genpd_set_performance_state() is an approximately similar API
> though (i.e., a genpd operation exposed to client drivers)? I could
> try to go that route, if the genpd maintainers think this makes sense.
>
> But secondly, this isn't exactly an operation on one power domain.
> It's an operation on the entire power controller. I suppose I could
> make a new domain here for the memory controller, and teach that
> domain to implicitly manipulate all the other domains provided by the
> PMU, but that feels like a fake abstraction to me.
>
> Lastly, and perhaps least importantly: this likely would require a
> device tree binding change. So far, the memory controller hasn't had
> its own power domain. I guess one could argue that it has some
> similarities to a power domain, albeit one that is managed in firmware
> -- so maybe this is a reasonable "bug" to fix, if it really comes down
> to it.
>
> > Because it is better to use subsystem interface.
>
> I don't agree this is universally true. It makes sense when there are
> truly abstract concepts represented, which are likely to appear across
> multiple implementations. Or maybe if the object model is complex. But
> this operation seems very SoC-specific to me, and it's pretty simple
> to implement this way. Or, do you think this is really something that
> others will need -- pausing (and powering) a power controller so
> another entity can manage it?

Thanks for detailed reply.

I agree your thinking. If possible, just I prefer to use standard
subsystem interface. But as you commented, it is not general case
that this issue is related to all power domains. Also, there is dt
binding issue as you described.

I agree this approach. Thanks.

(snip)

--
Best Regards,
Samsung Electronics
Chanwoo Choi