Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] drivers: bus: simple-pm-bus: Use clocks

[Liu Ying]

Hi Geert,

On Fri, 2022-08-12 at 10:58 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:13 AM Liu Ying <victor.liu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2022-08-11 at 14:34 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 8:10 AM Liu Ying <victor.liu@xxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Simple Power-Managed bus controller may need functional
> > > > clock(s)
> > > > to be enabled before child devices connected to the bus can be
> > > > accessed.  Get the clock(s) as a bulk and enable/disable the
> > > > clock(s) when the bus is being power managed.
> > > > 
> > > > One example is that Freescale i.MX8qxp pixel link MSI bus
> > > > controller
> > > > needs MSI clock and AHB clock to be enabled before accessing
> > > > child
> > > > devices.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Liu Ying <victor.liu@xxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your patch!
> > 
> > Thanks for the review.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > --- a/drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/bus/simple-pm-bus.c
> > > > @@ -8,11 +8,17 @@
> > > >   * for more details.
> > > >   */
> > > > 
> > > > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
> > > > 
> > > > +struct simple_pm_bus {
> > > > +       struct clk_bulk_data *clks;
> > > > +       int num_clks;
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >  static const struct of_device_id simple_pm_bus_child_matches[]
> > > > = {
> > > >         { .compatible = "simple-mfd", },
> > > >         {}
> > > > @@ -24,6 +30,7 @@ static int simple_pm_bus_probe(struct
> > > > platform_device *pdev)
> > > >         const struct of_dev_auxdata *lookup =
> > > > dev_get_platdata(dev);
> > > >         struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> > > >         const struct of_device_id *match;
> > > > +       struct simple_pm_bus *bus;
> > > > 
> > > >         /*
> > > >          * Allow user to use driver_override to bind this
> > > > driver to
> > > > a
> > > > @@ -49,6 +56,16 @@ static int simple_pm_bus_probe(struct
> > > > platform_device *pdev)
> > > >                         return -ENODEV;
> > > >         }
> > > > 
> > > > +       bus = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*bus),
> > > > GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > +       if (!bus)
> > > > +               return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +       bus->num_clks = devm_clk_bulk_get_all(&pdev->dev, &bus-
> > > > > clks);
> > > > 
> > > > +       if (bus->num_clks < 0)
> > > > +               return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, bus->num_clks,
> > > > "failed to get clocks\n");
> > > > +
> > > > +       dev_set_drvdata(&pdev->dev, bus);
> > > > +
> > > >         dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> > > > 
> > > >         pm_runtime_enable(&pdev->dev);
> > > 
> > > While I agree this patch has merits on its own[*], I am wondering
> > > if you really need it for your use case.
> > > 
> > > In "[PATCH v3 3/3] dt-bindings: bus: Add Freescale i.MX8qxp pixel
> > > link MSI bus binding", I see your bus has both "clocks" and
> > > "power-domains" properties.  Perhaps your PM Domain can be a
> > > clock
> > > domain, too (i.e. setting GENPD_FLAG_PM_CLK and providing
> > > generic_pm_domain.{at,de}tach_dev() callbacks), thus handing
> > > clock
> > > handling over to Runtime PM?
> > 
> > It looks like most(if not all) PM domains can be clock domains with
> > GENPD_FLAG_PM_CLK and generic_pm_domain.{at,de}tach_dev() callbacks
> > set. So, technically, my PM domain(scu-pd.c) can be a clock domain
> > with
> > all those set and a special check for "simple-pm-bus" in the
> > {at,de}tach_dev callbacks.  But, I'm not sure if it is appropriate
> > to
> > do that. How do we determine clocks should be managed by PM domains
> > or
> > device drivers? Technically, both would work...
> 
> It depends on the hardware topology: is there really a clock domain
> (i.e. lots of consumer modules are clocked by a single clock
>  controller and can be power-managed that way), or is it just a
>  coincidence that your bus has clocks.

It's just a coincidence that my bus has the two clocks.

> 
> E.g. drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.c:cpg_mssr_attach_dev()
> looks for clocks from the right clock provider and of the right type.

Ok, I see the function.

> 
> > > [*] The simple-pm-bus DT bindings state:
> > > 
> > >       clocks: true
> > >         # Functional clocks
> > >         # Required if power-domains is absent, optional otherwise
> > > 
> > >       power-domains:
> > >         # Required if clocks is absent, optional otherwise
> > >         minItems: 1
> > > 
> > > While "power-domains" (+ "clocks" in case of a clock domain) is
> > > handled through Runtime PM, the current driver indeed does not
> > > handle
> > > "clocks" in the absence of the "power-domains" property.  It
> > > looks
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > > like all existing users that use "clocks" rely on the PM Domain
> > > being
> > > a clock domain.
> > 
> > "renesas,bsc" seems to be one of the users.
> 
> Yes it is. And it doesn't need a special driver, as it just relies
> on Runtime PM controlling both the power area and the clocks through
> the PM Domain.

Yes, I see.

> 
> > > With your patch, the clocks might be controlled twice: once
> > > explicitly,
> > > through clk_bulk_*(), and a second time implicitly, through
> > > Runtime
> > > PM.
> > > While this works fine to do clock enable counters, it looks
> > > suboptimal
> > > to me.  This could be avoided by making the new explicit clock
> > > code
> > > depend on the absence of the "power-domains" property, but that
> > > would
> > > break users that have both a PM Domain which is not a clock
> > > domain,
> > > and clocks.  So we may have no other option.
> > 
> > Hmm, I'm not sure if there are really users that have both a PM
> > domain
> > which is not a clock domain and clocks, given that a PM domain can
> > sort
> > of always be a clock domain by setting that GENPD flag and those
> > callbacks.  So, what do you suggest? Keep the patch as-is? Or,
> > maybe,
> > make my PM domain additionally be a clock domain?
> 
> It depends. Is "dc0_disp_ctrl_link_mst0_lpcg" a clock controller that
> controls the clock inputs to multiple modules? Based on the name, it
> seems to be used only for display-related clocks, while "pd" controls
> power to various modules, not limited to display?
> Hence you may want to keep your patch as-is.

"dc0_disp_ctrl_link_mst0_lpcg" only controls the clock inputs to my
bus, not multiple modules.  "<&pd IMX_SC_R_DC_0>" controls power to all
modules in Display Controller Subsystem, including display controller
engines, irq controller, clock controllers and this MSI bus.

Hmm, based on your information, it looks like I need to keep the patch
as-is, as the clocks are only for the bus. If that's the case, may I
add your 'Reviewed-by' tag or sth like that on this patch that when I
send v4?

> 
> Renesas R-Car SoCs have separate power area and clock controllers,
> too, but they apply to most/all devices.  Hence we moduled this as
> a single PM Domain (also because "power-domains" (used to) support
> only a single provider), through a close integration of the power
> area and clock drivers.

Thanks for the information.

Liu Ying