[Freedreno] [PATCH v12 1/4] iommu/arm-smmu: Add pm_runtime/sleep ops
Marek Szyprowski
m.szyprowski at samsung.com
Mon Jul 23 05:59:57 UTC 2018
Hi Rafael,
On 2018-07-11 22:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski at samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hi Tomasz,
>>
>> On 2018-07-11 14:51, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 8:11 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 12:55 PM, Vivek Gautam
>>>> <vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, July 8, 2018 7:34:10 PM CEST Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Sricharan R <sricharan at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The smmu needs to be functional only when the respective
>>>>>>> master's using it are active. The device_link feature
>>>>>>> helps to track such functional dependencies, so that the
>>>>>>> iommu gets powered when the master device enables itself
>>>>>>> using pm_runtime. So by adapting the smmu driver for
>>>>>>> runtime pm, above said dependency can be addressed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This patch adds the pm runtime/sleep callbacks to the
>>>>>>> driver and also the functions to parse the smmu clocks
>>>>>>> from DT and enable them in resume/suspend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sricharan R <sricharan at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <architt at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>>> [vivek: Clock rework to request bulk of clocks]
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam at codeaurora.org>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <tfiga at chromium.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - No change since v11.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>>>>> index f7a96bcf94a6..a01d0dde21dd 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
>>>>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@
>>>>>>> #include <linux/of_iommu.h>
>>>>>>> #include <linux/pci.h>
>>>>>>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>>>> +#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>>>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>>> #include <linux/spinlock.h>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -205,6 +206,8 @@ struct arm_smmu_device {
>>>>>>> u32 num_global_irqs;
>>>>>>> u32 num_context_irqs;
>>>>>>> unsigned int *irqs;
>>>>>>> + struct clk_bulk_data *clks;
>>>>>>> + int num_clks;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> u32 cavium_id_base; /* Specific to Cavium */
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -1897,10 +1900,12 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_cfg_probe(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>>>>> struct arm_smmu_match_data {
>>>>>>> enum arm_smmu_arch_version version;
>>>>>>> enum arm_smmu_implementation model;
>>>>>>> + const char * const *clks;
>>>>>>> + int num_clks;
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #define ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(name, ver, imp) \
>>>>>>> -static struct arm_smmu_match_data name = { .version = ver, .model = imp }
>>>>>>> +static const struct arm_smmu_match_data name = { .version = ver, .model = imp }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(smmu_generic_v1, ARM_SMMU_V1, GENERIC_SMMU);
>>>>>>> ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(smmu_generic_v2, ARM_SMMU_V2, GENERIC_SMMU);
>>>>>>> @@ -1919,6 +1924,23 @@ static const struct of_device_id arm_smmu_of_match[] = {
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, arm_smmu_of_match);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +static void arm_smmu_fill_clk_data(struct arm_smmu_device *smmu,
>>>>>>> + const char * const *clks)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + int i;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + if (smmu->num_clks < 1)
>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + smmu->clks = devm_kcalloc(smmu->dev, smmu->num_clks,
>>>>>>> + sizeof(*smmu->clks), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>> + if (!smmu->clks)
>>>>>>> + return;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < smmu->num_clks; i++)
>>>>>>> + smmu->clks[i].id = clks[i];
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>>>>>>> static int acpi_smmu_get_data(u32 model, struct arm_smmu_device *smmu)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> @@ -2001,6 +2023,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>>>>>> data = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>>>>>>> smmu->version = data->version;
>>>>>>> smmu->model = data->model;
>>>>>>> + smmu->num_clks = data->num_clks;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + arm_smmu_fill_clk_data(smmu, data->clks);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> parse_driver_options(smmu);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -2099,6 +2124,14 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>> smmu->irqs[i] = irq;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + err = devm_clk_bulk_get(smmu->dev, smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
>>>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>>>> + return err;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + err = clk_bulk_prepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
>>>>>>> + if (err)
>>>>>>> + return err;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> err = arm_smmu_device_cfg_probe(smmu);
>>>>>>> if (err)
>>>>>>> return err;
>>>>>>> @@ -2181,6 +2214,9 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* Turn the thing off */
>>>>>>> writel(sCR0_CLIENTPD, ARM_SMMU_GR0_NS(smmu) + ARM_SMMU_GR0_sCR0);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + clk_bulk_unprepare(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -2197,7 +2233,27 @@ static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_pm_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(arm_smmu_pm_ops, NULL, arm_smmu_pm_resume);
>>>>>>> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return clk_bulk_enable(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static int __maybe_unused arm_smmu_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> + struct arm_smmu_device *smmu = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + clk_bulk_disable(smmu->num_clks, smmu->clks);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +static const struct dev_pm_ops arm_smmu_pm_ops = {
>>>>>>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(NULL, arm_smmu_pm_resume)
>>>>>> This is suspicious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you need a runtime suspend method, why do you think that it is not necessary
>>>>>> to suspend the device during system-wide transitions?
>>>>> Okay, so you suggest to put clock disabling in say arm_smmu_pm_suspend()?
>>>>> In that case the clocks have to be enabled in the resume path too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember Tomasz pointed to that we shouldn't need clock enable in resume
>>>>> path [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/15/60
>>> That was an answer for a different question. I don't remember
>>> suggesting having no suspend function. Although, given the PM
>>> subsystem internals, the suspend function wouldn't be called on SMMU
>>> implementation needed power control (since they would have runtime PM
>>> enabled) and on others, it would be called but do nothing (since no
>>> clocks).
>>>
>>>> Honestly, I just don't know. :-)
>>>>
>>>> It just looks odd the way it is done. I think the clock should be
>>>> gated during system-wide suspend too, because the system can spend
>>>> much more time in a sleep state than in the working state, on average.
>>>>
>>>> And note that you cannot rely on runtime PM to always do it for you,
>>>> because it may be disabled at a client device or even blocked by user
>>>> space via power/control in sysfs and that shouldn't matter for
>>>> system-wide PM.
>>> User space blocking runtime PM through sysfs is a good point. I'm not
>>> 100% sure how the PM subsystem deals with that in case of system-wide
>>> suspend. I guess for consistency and safety, we should have the
>>> suspend callback.
>> Frankly, if there are no other reasons I suggest to wire system
>> suspend/resume to pm_runtime_force_* helpers:
>> SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
>> pm_runtime_force_resume).
> Not a good idea at all IMO.
>
> Use PM driver flags rather I'd say.
Frankly, till now I wasn't aware of the DPM_FLAG_* in struct dev_pm_info
'driver_flags'. I've briefly checked them but I don't see the equivalent
of using SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(pm_runtime_force_suspend,
pm_runtime_force_resume): keep device suspend if it was runtime suspended
AND really call pm_runtime_suspend if it was not runtime suspended on
system suspend.
>> This way you will have everything related to suspending and resuming in
>> one place and you would not need to bother about all possible cases (like
>> suspending from runtime pm active and suspending from runtime pm suspended
>> cases as well as restoring proper device state on resume). This is
>> especially important in recent kernel releases, where devices are
>> system-suspended regardless their runtime pm states (in older kernels
>> devices were first runtime resumed for system suspend, what made code
>> simpler, but wasn't best from power consumption perspective).
>>
>> If you go this way, You only need to ensure that runtime resume will also
>> restore proper device state besides enabling all the clocks. This will
>> also prepare your driver to properly operate inside power domain, where it
>> is possible for device to loose its internal state after runtime suspend
>> when respective power domain has been turned off.
> I'm not sure if you are aware of the pm_runtime_force_* limitations, though.
What are those limitations?
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
More information about the Freedreno
mailing list