Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Aug 2021 12:21:00 +0530 | From | Sai Prakash Ranjan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iommu/arm-smmu: Add clk_bulk_{prepare/unprepare} to system pm callbacks |
| |
On 2021-08-03 11:36, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > On 2021-08-02 21:42, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 03:03:22PM +0530, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >>> Some clocks for SMMU can have parent as XO such as >>> gpu_cc_hub_cx_int_clk >>> of GPU SMMU in QTI SC7280 SoC and in order to enter deep sleep states >>> in >>> such cases, we would need to drop the XO clock vote in unprepare call >>> and >>> this unprepare callback for XO is in RPMh (Resource Power >>> Manager-Hardened) >>> clock driver which controls RPMh managed clock resources for new QTI >>> SoCs >>> and is a blocking call. >>> >>> Given we cannot have a sleeping calls such as clk_bulk_prepare() and >>> clk_bulk_unprepare() in arm-smmu runtime pm callbacks since the iommu >>> operations like map and unmap can be in atomic context and are in >>> fast >>> path, add this prepare and unprepare call to drop the XO vote only >>> for >>> system pm callbacks since it is not a fast path and we expect the >>> system >>> to enter deep sleep states with system pm as opposed to runtime pm. >>> >>> This is a similar sequence of clock requests (prepare,enable and >>> disable,unprepare) in arm-smmu probe and remove. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> >>> Co-developed-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> [+Rob] >> >> How does this work with that funny GPU which writes to the SMMU >> registers >> directly? Does the SMMU need to remain independently clocked for that >> to >> work or is it all in the same clock domain? >> > > As Rob mentioned, device link should take care of all the dependencies > between > SMMU and its consumers. But not sure how the question relates to this > patch as this > change is for system pm and not runtime pm, so it is exactly the > sequence of > SMMU probe/remove which if works currently for that GPU SMMU, then it > should work > just fine for system suspend and resume as well. > >>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c >>> b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c >>> index d3c6f54110a5..9561ba4c5d39 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c >>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm/arm-smmu/arm-smmu.c >>> @@ -2277,6 +2277,13 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>> arm_smmu_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev) >>> >>> static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_pm_resume(struct device *dev) >>> { >>> + int ret; >>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>> + >>> + ret = clk_bulk_prepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) >>> return 0; >> >> If we subsequently fail to enable the clks in >> arm_smmu_runtime_resume() >> should we unprepare them again? >> > > If we are unable to turn on the clks then its fatal and we will not > live for long. >
Nonetheless, it won't hurt to unprepare if clk enable fails as that is the correct thing anyway, so I have added it and sent a v2.
Thanks, Sai
> >> Will >> >>> @@ -2285,10 +2292,19 @@ static int __maybe_unused >>> arm_smmu_pm_resume(struct device *dev) >>> >>> static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_pm_suspend(struct device *dev) >>> { >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev); >>> + >>> if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev)) >>> - return 0; >>> + goto clk_unprepare; >>> >>> - return arm_smmu_runtime_suspend(dev); >>> + ret = arm_smmu_runtime_suspend(dev); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> +clk_unprepare: >>> + clk_bulk_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks); >>> + return ret; >>> } >>> >>> static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = { >>> -- >>> QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a >>> member >>> of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation >>>
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |