Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] soc: amlogic: Add support for Everything-Else power domains controller | From | Neil Armstrong <> | Date | Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:11:22 +0200 |
| |
On 27/08/2019 00:40, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 10:10 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote: >> >> On 25/08/2019 23:10, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: >>> Hi Neil, >>> >>> thank you for this update >>> I haven't tried this on the 32-bit SoCs yet, but I am confident that I >>> can make it work by "just" adding the SoC specific bits! >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:06 AM Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com> wrote: >>> [...] >>>> +/* AO Offsets */ >>>> + >>>> +#define AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_SLEEP0 (0x3a << 2) >>>> +#define AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_ISO0 (0x3b << 2) >>>> + >>>> +/* HHI Offsets */ >>>> + >>>> +#define HHI_MEM_PD_REG0 (0x40 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG0 (0x41 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG1 (0x42 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG3 (0x43 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4 (0x44 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_AUDIO_MEM_PD_REG0 (0x45 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_NANOQ_MEM_PD_REG0 (0x46 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_NANOQ_MEM_PD_REG1 (0x47 << 2) >>>> +#define HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG2 (0x4d << 2) >>> should we switch to the actual register offsets like we did in the >>> clock drivers? >> >> I find it simpler to refer to the numbers in the documentation... > OK, I have no strong preference here > for the 32-bit SoCs I will need to use the offsets based on the > "amlogic,meson8b-pmu", "syscon" [0], so these will be magic anyways > > [...] >>>> +#define VPU_HHI_MEMPD(__reg) \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(8) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(9) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(10) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(11) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(12) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(13) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(14) }, \ >>>> + { __reg, BIT(15) } >>> the Amlogic implementation from buildroot-openlinux-A113-201901 (the >>> latest one I have) >>> kernel/aml-4.9/drivers/amlogic/media/vout/hdmitx/hdmi_tx_20/hw/hdmi_tx_hw.c >>> uses: >>> hd_set_reg_bits(P_HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, 0, 8, 8) >>> that basically translates to: GENMASK(15, 8) (which means we could >>> drop this macro) >>> >>> the datasheet also states: 15~8 [...] HDMI memory PD (as a single >>> 8-bit wide register) >> >> Yep, but the actual code setting the VPU power domain is in u-boot : >> >> drivers/vpu/aml_vpu_power_init.c: >> 108 for (i = 8; i < 16; i++) { >> 109 vpu_hiu_setb(HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, 0, i, 1); >> 110 udelay(5); >> 111 } >> >> the linux code is like never used here, my preference goes to the u-boot code >> implementation. > I see, let's keep your implementation then > >>> >>> [...] >>>> +static struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain_desc g12a_pwrc_domains[] = { >>>> + [PWRC_G12A_VPU_ID] = VPU_PD("VPU", &g12a_pwrc_vpu, g12a_pwrc_mem_vpu, >>>> + pwrc_ee_get_power, 11, 2), >>>> + [PWRC_G12A_ETH_ID] = MEM_PD("ETH", g12a_pwrc_mem_eth), >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +static struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain_desc sm1_pwrc_domains[] = { >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_VPU_ID] = VPU_PD("VPU", &sm1_pwrc_vpu, sm1_pwrc_mem_vpu, >>>> + pwrc_ee_get_power, 11, 2), >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_NNA_ID] = TOP_PD("NNA", &sm1_pwrc_nna, sm1_pwrc_mem_nna, >>>> + pwrc_ee_get_power), >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_USB_ID] = TOP_PD("USB", &sm1_pwrc_usb, sm1_pwrc_mem_usb, >>>> + pwrc_ee_get_power), >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_PCIE_ID] = TOP_PD("PCI", &sm1_pwrc_pci, sm1_pwrc_mem_pcie, >>>> + pwrc_ee_get_power), >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_GE2D_ID] = TOP_PD("GE2D", &sm1_pwrc_ge2d, sm1_pwrc_mem_ge2d, >>>> + pwrc_ee_get_power), >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_AUDIO_ID] = MEM_PD("AUDIO", sm1_pwrc_mem_audio), >>>> + [PWRC_SM1_ETH_ID] = MEM_PD("ETH", g12a_pwrc_mem_eth), >>>> +}; >>> my impression: I find this hard to read as it merges the TOP and >>> Memory PD domains from above, adding some seemingly random "11, 2" for >>> the VPU PD as well as pwrc_ee_get_power for some of the power domains >>> personally I like the way we describe clk_regmap because it's easy to >>> read (even though it adds a bit of boilerplate). I'm not sure if we >>> can make it work here, but this (not compile tested) is what I have in >>> mind (I chose two random power domains): >>> [PWRC_SM1_VPU_ID] = { >>> .name = "VPU", >>> .top_pd = SM1_EE_PD(8), >>> .mem_pds = { >>> VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG0), >>> VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG1), >>> VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG2), >>> VPU_MEMPD(HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG3), >>> { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(1, 0) }, >>> { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(3, 2) }, >>> { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(5, 4) }, >>> { HHI_VPU_MEM_PD_REG4, GENMASK(7, 6) }, >>> { HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, GENMASK(15, 8) }, >>> }, >>> .num_mem_pds = 9, >>> .reset_names_count = 11, >>> .clk_names_count = 2, >>> }, >>> [PWRC_SM1_ETH_ID] = { >>> .name = "ETH", >>> .mem_pds = { HHI_MEM_PD_REG0, GENMASK(3, 2) }, >>> .num_mem_pds = 1, >>> }, >>> ... >>> >>> I'd like to get Kevin's feedback on this >>> what you have right now is probably good enough for the initial >>> version of this driver. I'm bringing this discussion up because we >>> will add support for more SoCs to this driver (we migrate GX over to >>> it and I want to add 32-bit SoC support, which probably means at least >>> Meson8 - assuming they kept the power domains identical between >>> Meson8/8b/8m2). >> >> I find it more compact, but nothing is set in stone, you can refactor this as >> will when adding meson8 support, no problems here. > OK. if Kevin (or someone else) has feedback on this then I don't have > to waste time if it turns out that it's not a great idea ;) > >>> >>> [...] >>>> +struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain { >>>> + struct generic_pm_domain base; >>>> + bool enabled; >>>> + struct meson_ee_pwrc *pwrc; >>>> + struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain_desc desc; >>>> + struct clk_bulk_data *clks; >>>> + int num_clks; >>>> + struct reset_control *rstc; >>>> + int num_rstc; >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> +struct meson_ee_pwrc { >>>> + struct regmap *regmap_ao; >>>> + struct regmap *regmap_hhi; >>>> + struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain *domains; >>>> + struct genpd_onecell_data xlate; >>>> +}; >>> (my impressions on this: I was surprised to find more structs down >>> here, I expected them to be together with the other structs further >>> up) >> >> These are the "live" structures, opposed to the static structures defining the >> data and these are allocated and filled a probe time. > I see, thanks for the explanation > >> I dislike changing static global data at runtime, this is why I clearly separated both. > I didn't mean to make them static - the thing that caught my eye was > that some of the structs are defined at the top of the driver while > these two are define much further down > I am used to having all struct definitions in one place
I'll let Kevin leave his feedback on this aswell.
> >>> >>>> +static bool pwrc_ee_get_power(struct meson_ee_pwrc_domain *pwrc_domain) >>>> +{ >>>> + u32 reg; >>>> + >>>> + regmap_read(pwrc_domain->pwrc->regmap_ao, >>>> + pwrc_domain->desc.top_pd->sleep_reg, ®); >>>> + >>>> + return (reg & pwrc_domain->desc.top_pd->sleep_mask); >>> should this also check for top_pd->iso_* as well as mem_pd->*? >>> if the top_pd part was optional we could even use the get_power >>> callback for *all* power domains in this driver (right now audio and >>> Ethernet don't have any get_power callback) >> >> We could, but how should we handle if one unexpected bit is set ? No idea... > hmm, I see > if we need it for other power domains then we can still implement it, > so it's good for now > > [...] >>> bonus question: what about the video decoder power domains? >>> here is an example from vdec_1_start >>> (drivers/staging/media/meson/vdec/vdec_1.c): >>> /* Enable power for VDEC_1 */ >>> regmap_update_bits(core->regmap_ao, AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_SLEEP0, >>> GEN_PWR_VDEC_1, 0); >>> usleep_range(10, 20); >>> [...] >>> /* enable VDEC Memories */ >>> amvdec_write_dos(core, DOS_MEM_PD_VDEC, 0); >>> /* Remove VDEC1 Isolation */ >>> regmap_write(core->regmap_ao, AO_RTI_GEN_PWR_ISO0, 0); >>> >>> (my point here is that it mixes video decoder "DOS" registers with >>> AO_RTI_GEN_PWR registers) >>> do we also want to add support for these "DOS" power domains to the >>> meson-ee-pwrc driver? >>> what about the AO_RTI_GEN_PWR part then - should we keep management >>> for the video decoder power domain bits in AO_RTI_GEN_PWR as part of >>> the video decoder driver? >> >> I left the decoders power domains aside so we can discuss it later on, >> we should expose multiple power domains, but the driver would need to >> be changed to support multiple power domains. But will loose the ability >> to enable/disable each domain at will unless it created a sub-device for >> each decoder and attaches the domain to to each device and use runtime pm. >> >> It's simpler to discuss it later on ! > OK - does this mean you and/or Maxime have "discuss decoder power > domains" on your (long) TODO-list or do you want me to open this > discussion after this driver is merged?
Both I think, let this be an open discussion !
Neil
> > > Martin > > > [0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic/pmu.txt >
| |