[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 3/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Invoke pm_runtime during probe, add/remove device
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Robin Murphy <> wrote:
> On 07/03/18 13:52, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:38 PM, Robin Murphy <> wrote:
>>> On 02/03/18 10:10, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>> From: Sricharan R <>
>>>> The smmu device probe/remove and add/remove master device callbacks
>>>> gets called when the smmu is not linked to its master, that is without
>>>> the context of the master device. So calling runtime apis in those
>>>> places
>>>> separately.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <>
>>>> [vivek: Cleanup pm runtime calls]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 96
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> index c8b16f53f597..3d6a1875431f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>> @@ -209,6 +209,8 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>>> struct clk_bulk_data *clks;
>>>> int num_clks;
>>>> + bool rpm_supported;
>>>> +
>>> Can we not automatically infer this from whether clocks and/or power
>>> domains
>>> are specified or not, then just use pm_runtime_enabled() as the fast-path
>>> check as Tomasz originally proposed?
>> I wouldn't tie this to presence of clocks, since as a next step we
>> would want to actually control the clocks separately. (As far as I
>> understand, on QCom SoCs we might want to have runtime PM active for
>> the translation to work, but clocks gated whenever access to SMMU
>> registers is not needed.) Moreover, you might still have some super
>> high scale thousand-core systems that require clocks to be
>> prepare-enabled, but runtime PM would be undesirable for the reasons
>> we discussed before.
>>> I worry that relying on statically-defined matchdata is just going to
>>> blow
>>> up the driver and DT binding into a maintenance nightmare; I really don't
>>> want to start needing separate definitions for e.g.
>>> "arm,juno-etr-mmu-401"
>>> and "arm,juno-hdlcd-mmu-401" just because one otherwise-identical
>>> instance
>>> within the SoC is in a separate controllable power domain while the
>>> others
>>> aren't.
>> I don't see a reason why both couldn't just have RPM supported
>> regardless of whether there is a real power domain. It would
>> effectively be just a no-op for those that don't have one.
> Because you're then effectively defining "compatible" values for the sake of
> attaching software policy to them, rather than actually describing different
> hardware implementations.
> The fact that RPM can't do anything meaningful unless relevant clock/power
> aspects *are* described, however, means that we shouldn't need additional
> information redundant with that. Much like the fact that we don't *already*
> have an "arm,juno-hdlcd-mmu-401" compatible to account for those being
> integrated such that IDR0.CTTW has the wrong value, since the presence or
> not of the "dma-coherent" property already describes the truth in that
> regard.

Fair enough.

>> IMHO the
>> only reason to avoid having the RPM enabled is the scalability issue
>> we discussed before.
> Yes, but that's kind of my point; in reality high throughput/minimal latency
> and aggressive power management are more or less mutually exclusive. Mobile
> SoCs with fine-grained clock trees and power domains won't have multiple
> 40GBe/NVMf/whatever links running flat out in parallel; conversely
> networking/infrastructure/server SoCs aren't designed around saving every
> last microamp of leakage current - even in the (fairly unlikely) case of the
> interconnect clocks being software-gateable at all I would be very surprised
> if that were ever exposed directly to Linux (FWIW I believe ACPI essentially
> *requires* clocks to be abstracted behind firmware).
> Realistically then, explicit clocks are only expected on systems which care
> about power management. We can always revisit that assumption if anything
> crazy where it isn't the case ever becomes non-theoretical, but for now it's
> one I'm entirely comfortable with. If on the other hand it turns out that we
> can rely on just a power domain being present wherever we want RPM, making
> clocks moot, then all the better.

Alright. Since Qcom would be the only user of clock and power handling
for the time being, I think checking power domain presence could work
for us. +/- the fact that clocks need to be handled even if power
domain is not present, but we should normally always have both.

Now we need a way to do the check. Perhaps for the time being it would
be enough to just check for the power-domains property in DT?

Best regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 05:34    [W:0.055 / U:24.632 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site